Walter McLeod is Managing Director and Co-Founder of VSF Solar, which manages the construction of utility-scale solar energy systems. The company currently has an active pipeline of over 60 Megawatts of solar PV under development in Virginia. With more than 20 years’ experience in energy policy and solar development, McCleod also manages the Global Energy and Innovation Institute, a public-private partnership with George Mason University.

McCleod served on the ground breaking “Utility 2.0” project steering committee of the United Nations Foundation, on the Commonwealth of Virginia “Value of Solar” stakeholder committee, and is Managing Director of Clean Power Group Africa. In 2008, he founded Eco Capitol Companies, which provides strategic analysis on sustainable energy and transportation. With a Masters of Chemistry from George Mason, McCleod chairs that university’s College of Science alumni chapter.

EarthTalk: Can you say a little about VSF Solar? Why was the company founded and under what circumstances?

Walter McCleod: So VSF Solar is an in dependent power producer. We build utility scale solar projects, primarily in the mid-Atlantic region and we have experience developing these projects in North Carolina and more recently, in Virginia. And the reason it was founded is because there’s been a significant shift in public policy and the move towards solar in the commonwealth. Since about 2015, there’s been the primary, dominant utility Dominion Energy, which made a strategic move to focus on solar and natural gas as the primary generation sources for the state. So that created opportunities for companies like ours to enter the market and start bringing our service to what is now probably the fastest growing solar economy in the U.S.

E: Which is Virginia, the whole state?

McCleod: Yes, yes. In fact, I think Dominion in their recent IRP report is projecting 5.5 gigawatts of solar in the near term, which is phenomenal. So yeah, there’s going to be a lot of solar in Virginia.

E: Okay, and how much did concerns about the environment affect your decision to start the company, and how much was economic opportunity?

McCleod: Well, I think obviously we want to do well and we want to do good. So we’re driven by those dual purposes and the environment is the most important thing we have. So if we, as an energy consuming nation, the largest energy consuming nation on the planet, if we can figure out a way to consume more clean energy, then it’s better not just for us but it’s better for the planet in general. But also, I think you’re looking at the beginning of a real transition in the way that we create power in the world. We’re going away from extracting power in the form of fossil fuels, to harvesting power from renewable resources. So we’re harvesting the wind, we’re harvesting the sun, and it’s much more in sync with the way that these natural processes work anyway. So I think it’s going to create some really great economic opportunity for people who are positioned well, who understand the space and who are able to seize the moment, and that’s one of the things that we’re trying to do.

E: Great. So you’re getting on top of a trend, really a game changing trend as it’s starting.

McCleod: Yeah, a secular trend, I think. A long term secular trend that is part of a number of these secular trends; the big technology secular trend that’s happening right now with the way we communicate and the way we interact, through social media, electronics, and all of these platforms, is also transferring over into things like electricity, energy generation and transportation.

E: Right. So it’s really using many technological changes all happening at once and integrating them.

McCleod: Yes, that’s right.

E: And you’re developing — we think of the home solar power, which I have myself on my roof, but you’re doing larger scale utility projects. So can you say a little about what that entails as a company? Like what obstacles, financing and also the advantages of larger scale projects.

McCleod: Sure, of course. So utility scale solar is one of three common forms of solar development; there’s utility scale, there’s commercial and industrial scale, which is a bit smaller, and then there’s the residential scale, which is probably what you may have at your home and what most consumers are familiar with putting on their rooftops. The reason that we are developing at the utility scale is because at the moment, the cost for utility scale per megawatt is lower than it would be for the other two forms of development. So there’s a cost benefit in going bigger. The other reason why is because the market for utility scale has been the fastest growing, that’s been where the market is right now. So as we’ve been starting to develop a commercial and industrial platform to go along with our utility scale work, we tend to, as solar developers, go to where the market is, and this has been — this has worked for us as a business strategy.

E: Great. And who are some of your main clients and what are some of the major projects that you’ve worked on?

McCleod: For utility scale projects, the clients are — they can be varied. So they can be electric utilities, both publicly owned utilities, co ops, and municipals. We can also develop projects for bigger developers, some of the national developers, like First Solar, which is also a panel manufacturer. They make a thin filmed panel that is unique and it’s made here in the U.S., but they also develop projects. SunPower is another solar manufacturer; they make panels and they buy projects. And then there are regional players that build these projects, and then they own them and sell the power to the utility, or they sell the power across a regional grid, like the PJM grid. So those are the folks that we tend to sell to. Sometimes we will enter into a power purchase agreement with commercial entities or with private entities. So Microsoft and Facebook and Amazon in this region, specifically in Virginia, have been featured buyers of solar projects and we would love to work with them as a small business entity. And we can work with them and we can also work with entities like universities. Recently, I know George Washington University formed a consortium and they bought a large purchase of solar power from Duke Energy in North Carolina. So those are all of the typical targets that we focus on when we’re looking to sell our power and our projects.

E: Great, so you’re really partnering with a large number of entities.

McCleod: Yes, that’s right.

E: And besides your work developing solar, you also founded the Global Energy and Innovation Institute, which is a partnership with George Mason University. Can you say just a little bit about the institute and what it does and also how it overlaps with your work at VSF Solar?

McCleod: Absolutely. So the Global Energy and Innovation Institute is a public/private partnership that we formed with the college of science at George Mason. And really our focus is to advance low the carbon electric economy, efforts, initiatives, programs, partnerships to work with industry, to work with government, to work with communities, to come up with solutions that accelerate the transition to low carbon electricity and electrification in general. And we focus on two verticals that are really gaining traction nationally. So transportation is one of our partnering verticals. The other vertical that we spend a lot of time on is grid innovation and in transportation, our focus is really around electric vehicles and electric vehicle infrastructure, and incentives to make that happen. A lot of folks are talking about the new paradigm of automated electric and shared transportation or mobility, and we think that that’s probably the new reality. That’s where we’re moving, and we believe that shift should happen in a way that makes sense and doesn’t necessarily have any harmful disruption to the current system. There’s a way to transition that so that the economy grows and it’s a win/win. That’s one of the primary areas we focus on, and then around grid innovation, we’ve been doing a lot around the digital grid. As you know, northern Virginia in particular is home to almost 90% of internet traffic east of the Mississippi here in the United States, because of the presence of the data center community. We think that that is going to grow; the region is going to become more known as a data and technology center and it’s going to have to be powered by, hopefully, clean energy. Low carbon clean energy, and that’s what we want to make sure happens. As we see greater digitization, greater electrification of everything we do, we want to see that be fueled by clean energy; low carbon power.

E: So transportation, communication, pretty much all of our — everything we depend on in society today is increasingly linked to clean energy, but you have to make a bit of an effort to make sure that you get this ecologically friendly energy.

McCleod: That’s right. You’ve got to go to the source and a lot of folks are unaware of how their power is generated. We think that that needs to change; people need to understand the difference between dirtier generation and cleaner generation, and the carbon impacts of each. And so it’s an educational lift, a public awareness lift, but it’s also a market lift. The market and the innovation that’s coming of age, it’s often ahead of the regulatory and policy paradigm. And so they play catch up.

E: Right and unfortunately right now, we are not in a time when the Federal Government, under Trump, is working towards this energy. And they even slapped a tariff on imported solar panels. So how might this lack of federal support right now affect your business?

McCleod: Well, it doesn’t help our business. There are certainly folks making an argument that it will create more jobs for domestic manufacturing around solar panels, but I think you’re going to see more jobs lost than gained. Because the net effect is that the U.S. is not, and has not been, a manufacturing power for solar power for some time. We are the innovation power; we create the innovations and then the manufacturing, often times, some of it happens here. First Solar is an example of that, they’ve got the most innovative thin film technology that the world knows. But for standard panels, the world is the marketplace and to just have a blanket tariff on this particular industry that is the fastest growing job creating sector in the country, by many estimates, is going to slow job growth. It’s going to have a negative impact eventually. And so we’re hoping that it’s just tempered; that the industry finds a way to adjust and continue its forward and upward trajectory. But it’s not been something that we like to see, and we’ll increase the price of panels somewhat.

E: Somewhat. So is it more like just a speed bump that you think you’ll overcome or more like a real longterm constraint that’s a serious worry?

McCleod: Well, I hope it’s a speed bump. I hope this is, at most, a four to six month slow down that once we are able to figure out the true market implications of it, that we’re able to digest that and projects are still financed and that people don’t lose jobs, most importantly.

E: Right, because now the solar industry is one of the leading and growing job creation sectors.

McCleod: Yes and when I mentioned the there sectors that projects are developed in, in the residential sector is where I think you’ll see the biggest hit in terms of job loss, because the margins are very thin there. And when you look at a 10% or 15% or whatever that number ends up being in terms of the increase in panel cost, it’s going to translate into lost jobs.

E: Okay, I’m glad I got my solar panels up and charging already.

McCleod: Smart move.

E: Alright, lastly, do you have any suggestions for individuals who might want to develop their own environmentally friendly businesses, especially in the current climate?

McCleod: Well, I think you have to definitely do some homework. There are different segments of the market; if you’re interested in renewable energy, if you’re interested in electrified or clean transportation. There are different entry points where you can add value. Look at your skillset. There are lots of opportunities, both in the Washington metropolitan region, as well as nationally. But the thing to do is to align yourself with a sector that you can add real value to, and do your homework. But it’s a great opportunity, it’s a great time to be in this growing market and it’s exciting to be adding to the legacy of clean energy. It’s going to really recreate the future for all Americans.

E: Okay, so the opportunities are there, it just takes work and foresight.

McCleod: Yes, that’s right. Get involved locally, if you have an interest. I know I got involved, I was appointed to a commission that the general assembly and the governor had set up a few years ago to look at the value of solar. And that was where I knew Virginia’s market was changing because I could see where the governor was leading things, Governor McAuliffe. I could see where the big utility player was shifting, and that let me know. That was my signal that I needed to refocus my efforts from, at that time, North Carolina, back to Virginia and I’m glad I did. So get involved.

]]>https://earthtalk.org/walter-mcleod/feed/021927no Walter McCleod of VSF Solar discusses the challenges of ramping up solar power to utility-scale across the mid-Atlantic region and beyond... The post Interview: VSF Solar&#8217;s Walter McLeod Discusses Ramping Up Solar to Utility-Scale appeared first onRoddy Scheer Walter McCleod of VSF Solar discusses the challenges of ramping up solar power to utility-scale across the mid-Atlantic region and beyond... The post Interview: VSF Solar&#8217;s Walter McLeod Discusses Ramping Up Solar to Utility-Scale appeared first on EarthTalk.org. environment,environmental,sustainability,green,living,solar,green,interview,Q,Ahttps://earthtalk.org/walter-mcleod/https://earthtalk.org/wp-content/uploads/earthtalk-podcast-mccleod.mp3Interview: Solar Mowing Founder and Author Lynda DeWitthttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PodcastEarthtalkorg/~3/1CcfEl-9znE/
https://earthtalk.org/solar-mowing-lynda-dewitt/#respondSun, 24 Dec 2017 08:16:48 +0000roddy@earthtalk.org (Roddy Scheer)https://earthtalk.org/?p=18073Solar Mowing founder Lynda DeWitt discusses how working as a children's book author and editor at leading environmental periodicals led her to start her sun-powered lawn mowing company Solar Mowing...

Back in 2009, Lynda DeWitt left behind a successful career in environmental journalism — she wrote and edited for National Geographic and Discovery as well as penning children’s books — to launch Solar Mowing, a Bethesda, Maryland-based company that runs a fleet of battery-powered mowers, trimmers and blowers fueled 100% by renewable energy (from solar and wind). Customers love using Solar Mowing because not only are they doing the right thing by the environment but the equipment is much quieter than its conventional gas-powered counterparts. EarthTalk’s Ethan Goffman caught up with DeWitt recently in a Bethesda coffee shop to get the low-down on her inspiration, implementation and goals…

EarthTalk: What led you to start a solar mowing company? What concerns and opportunities did you perceive?

Lynda DeWitt: Hi Ethan, thanks for inviting me on Earthtalk. I started solar mowing in 2009. I was a writer and an editor, always working on natural history and environmental issues. So I was always talking about and writing about the environment and finally, in 2009, I decided I wanted to do something about it. I had a gasoline powered mower and every time my husband or I would mow, we would bring in the kids and the dog and shut the windows and mow with our gasoline mower. When I discovered that gasoline mowers pollute more in an hour than a dozen cars pollute in an hour, I thought, this has got to stop. So I got a real mower, one of those bladed push mowers and in our area, you really have to use those about every three days to keep up. So that didn’t quite work. So I got a battery powered mower. We’ve always had renewable energy at our house; we buy wind, we’ve bought it for 20 years. We have energy choice in the mid Atlantic and now, we have solar panels on our roof. So I charged my battery powered mower with renewables and I thought, if this is something that I really love, other people might love it too. So I put a solar panel on a couple of trucks and took it on the road. Again, that was in 2009, so next year will be my tenth year.

E: Great. Strangely enough, I have a similar story because I also had a push mower, switched to an electric, and have solar panels. But how would you describe your business philosophy then, once you got off the ground, other than obviously wanting to help the environment?

DeWitt: Well, that’s pretty much it. I was determined — the premise I made to the customers was that we would use only emission free, low noise equipment when we did their lawn. We’re still driving to our customers in a combustion engine pickup truck and transit, Ford transit; although I’d love to get electric vehicles. But our promise is that we will not use something that’s going to pollute their environment, their yards. It’s not going to add to the soot in their lungs and it’s not going to add carbon to the environment. Nor is it going to harm their ears with the large racket that most equipment, especially blowers, the noise that they emit. When we do our leaf clean ups, we use actually emission free blowers which are very effective, and rakes, old fashioned rakes and they work very well.

E: I use just a rake on my yard which is a small yard. I think you’ve covered most of what makes your equipment so environmentally friendly but anything else about your equipment or your procedures or your solar source?

DeWitt: Sure. The thing I’d like to say is, for those, if there’s anyone out there thinking about getting a battery powered lawn mower to replace their gasoline, that is all well and good but if they’re still charging their batteries from a coal derived kilowatts, then they are still polluting. Maybe not in their own backyard but it’s still emitting carbon into the air, wherever the plant is from. So they need to charge their batteries with renewables to make it 100% emission free. So the other thing we do is that we mow according to the weather and not the calendar. We’re not out there every Friday at ten o’clock, mowing someone’s lawn. Many customers don’t need it every week, even in the spring; some do but not everyone does. So we mow high, we leave the clippings on the grass and those water-based clippings decompose in a matter of weeks and they fertilize the soil. So it’s a win/win for everyone. We don’t mow as often, often as big commercial mowing companies do, and we mow with eco-friendly equipment.

E: And longer grass is actually better for biodiversity too.

DeWitt: Absolutely, yeah. It not only promotes root growth but the longer grass shades the soil and helps prevent weeds from germinating and more lawn care. More animals, earthworms and bees and flowers. We don’t think that clover is a bad thing in our yards. It used to be a part of grass seed. Grass seed used to include seeds of clover. It’s a nitrogen fixing plant; it takes nitrogen out of the air and puts it in the soil. So it’s a very critically good, good so-called weed. When the weed killers came out in the 50s, they killed everything but the grass so it gave clover another beneficial, so called weed, a bad name. But clover is good.

DeWitt: Right. We don’t advocate using any pesticides. We use organic fertilizers if a customer wants that. We also will top dress lawns with a thin layer of compost which is nothing but fertilizer really. So we don’t use chemically based fertilizers, nor do we ever use pesticides.

E: If mowing lawns is the heart of your business, what other services do you provide?

DeWitt: We provide to our mowing customers, weeding in their beds, mulching, and pruning. We do reseeding in the spring and in the fall, leaf clean up. So to our mowing customers, we provide a whole range of other services.

E: Great and those are also environmentally friendly.

DeWitt: Yeah, some of them are just neutral; weeding, pruning your shrubs. It’s not good or bad. It’s just something that needs to be done in most landscapes. And we say we mulch and we do put down mulch, but we will also, when we do our leaf cleanups, will mulch the leaves that are on the grass, collect them in a bag and put that bag of mulched leaves and grass on the beds as a mulch. It’s basically what mulch is, it’s just plant parts. So a lot of people have their own mulch, falling from their trees and shrubs already; so we just utilize that and feed the beds, spread the wealth around.

E: I know there are a lot of green businesses in the Bethesda area. But the Federal government is currently not what you would describe as green friendly. So how are kind of larger trends like that affecting your business?

DeWitt: The populous as a whole is becoming more aware. Everyone knows that climate change is a problem, that carbon is bad and we all need to reduce our footprint. Yesterday we should have done it, today is pretty good; tomorrow is a little late. We need to all be doing this. The Federal government isn’t really relevant. Our county in Maryland, Montgomery County. I could have the numbers wrong but they just passed a very progressive — some progressive goals on carbon to be carbon — to get rid of all carbon by 2035, I think, and 80% by 2027. Again, my numbers might be off but it’s very challenging. So more and more people want to do the right thing and I’m hoping that companies like mine will make it easier for them to have some choices.

E: I know the county does have aggressive goals and a lot of local government is working hard and local businesses. What about future plans, like are you delighted with the way your company is going now or where do you see it heading in the next few years?

DeWitt: Truthfully Ethan, I thought by this time that I would be bought out or just pushed out of the way by bigger, more well financed companies. But to my surprise and disappointment, I guess you could say, no one is really doing this. At least very few companies are, so it’s left this big opening for us. We try to keep our customers within a five mile radius of our headquarters and we just have one headquarters at this point, but there’s such demand out there in all parts of the D.C. Metro area where we’re located. I would love to see us have hubs where we can charge our batteries with renewables and try to service all around the beltway and in D.C. We’re in parts of D.C. but not all, so there’s a big demand for this and I’d be happy if other companies jumped in and started doing this. Battery technology is probably part of the problem. We’ve put up with a lot of headaches over these past ten years. It’s come a long way since 2009, I will say that. And my dedication, if I can toot my own horn, I guess; charging batteries late at night when they took 12 hours to charge and getting them right off the charger in the mornings. So it was sort of a lot of upkeep and it took a lot of time in the beginning. And still, there is not a large riding mower that is battery powered. Maybe that’s the hang up for bigger companies, but most of our customers don’t need riding mowers. And I will say one more thing if I may about the big, heavy mowers, including riding and just gasoline. Our mowers are light and most battery powered mowers are lighter in weight than the big gasoline and certain riding mowers, and that is critical to grass and soil health. The big mowers compact the soil; that is death for soil. It’s death for the roots, the grass. So my fear is that as the mowers — as battery power improves, mowers get bigger, we may not be benefitting the lawns as much. Truthfully, most of the lawns in the Metro areas are small, we don’t need riding mowers. So I don’t know why other companies haven’t got on board but…

E: Do you think the profit margins might be smaller, especially if you’re more natural, you don’t mow as often.

DeWitt: That could be. Maybe they think if you’re not going to mow every week and you can get on and off your riding mower in seven minutes, that quite possibly is an issue. We pay our help very well, way above minimum wage. But the profit margin may be a concern.

E: Of course, Patagonia has made a lot of money saying, don’t buy new stuff from us. So maybe it’s just a question of finding a way to change your frame of reference.

DeWitt: Right, and I advise people who are just moving into a place or just building a house in our area what they’re going to plant and if they’re going to have grass. I encourage people to minimize grass. I’m a child of the suburbs, I love my grass because it’s an open space in my lawn. But the beds where there are trees and native plants and undergrowth, where birds and small mammals can thrive. That’s the heart and soul of my property, and while I do have a small lawn and back and front, I would encourage people to keep it small.

]]>https://earthtalk.org/solar-mowing-lynda-dewitt/feed/018073no Solar Mowing founder Lynda DeWitt discusses how working as a children's book author and editor at leading environmental periodicals led her to start her sun-powered lawn mowing company Solar Mowing... The post Interview: Solar Mowing Founder and Author LRoddy Scheer Solar Mowing founder Lynda DeWitt discusses how working as a children's book author and editor at leading environmental periodicals led her to start her sun-powered lawn mowing company Solar Mowing... The post Interview: Solar Mowing Founder and Author Lynda DeWitt appeared first on EarthTalk.org. environment,environmental,sustainability,green,living,solar,green,interview,Q,Ahttps://earthtalk.org/solar-mowing-lynda-dewitt/https://earthtalk.org/wp-content/uploads/podcast_dewitt_122617.mp3Interview: ecobeco Founder Brian Toll Talks Green Building & Remodelinghttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PodcastEarthtalkorg/~3/DvBEnOeJM7A/
https://earthtalk.org/ecobeco/#respondTue, 21 Nov 2017 20:54:24 +0000roddy@earthtalk.org (Roddy Scheer)http://earthtalk.org/?p=18001Interview: ecobeco Founder Brian Toll Talks remodeling old houses for energy efficiency, comfort and health and building new homes to greener standards.

In 2008, Brian Toll left his marketing job at Sprint Nextel to found ecobeco in Rockville, Maryland. ecobeco’s website describes its philosophy:

“We believe that all homeowners should live in comfortable, efficient, healthy homes. ecobeco is your trusted partner for whole home design that impacts you and your family, your community, and the environment in positive ways.”

ecobeco’s core business is remodeling old houses for energy efficiency, comfort and health; in addition, the company builds custom homes. ecobeco participates in the Maryland Home Performance with Energy Star Program and the US Department of Energy’s Zero Energy Ready Home Program.

Brian holds a BS in Economics from the Wharton School and an MBA from MIT’s Sloan School of Management. EarthTalk’s Ethan Goffman caught up with him in his office in Rockville…

EarthTalk: What makes ecobeco a sustainable business, and in what ways do you help the environment?

Brian Toll: Well first, let me thank you for having me on the show today. ecobeco is all about sustainability. We have been helping consumers reduce their energy costs for about ten years now and most of our focus is on reducing the amount of energy that people consume. And the impact to the production of energy and the dirty emissions and trying to get it so that we will have a lower carbon footprint. So while many of our consumers are coming to us for a variety of issues related to comfort or just trying to get their bills down, we have the added benefit of being able to help them with making the environment better and for a subset of our customers, that’s a really great advantage.

E: And of course, everyone will save money.

Toll: They sure will. Everyone will save money and it’s that triple bottom line that we’re looking for, and we have a lot of fun doing it. We’ve helped over 50,000 people in the Montgomery County area, through the energy efficiency programs with our local utility.

E: So that’s people, planet, and profit is the triple bottom line. So why did you choose to start ecobeco? Under what circumstances?

Toll: So in 2008, you might remember there was a movie that came out by a gentleman named Al Gore, and it had a strong impact on me. At the time, I was working in a technology firm and thought to myself, maybe we’ve sold enough cell phones and I should be doing something that’s going to make a difference for the planet. I decided to make a switch and started asking around and looking on the internet and thought, it seemed to me that the amount of consumer information available on energy efficiency. And back then, is was very hard to figure out what people could really do. So I was fortunate enough to be introduced to my future business partner and we co-founded the company ecobeco back in 2008. I come from a business background, I have an MBA and my partner, Reuven Walder, was a home energy auditor, who was certified with the Building Performance Institute. We just started the business out of a little warehouse area here in Rockville, and it’s grown from there to as large as 40 employees over the past ten years.

E: That’s impressive. I remember when I first got my house ten years ago, eleven years ago. We were very slapdash, we said, oh, we’d better put in some insulation. Maybe we should do something about the windows, but I think you can be a lot more systematic. So what advice do you have to people to make their homes greener? Where do you get started, how do you be as effective as possible?

Toll: So first, let me just say, I’ll narrow my comments to energy efficiency. So when I talk about green, that’s what I mean and of course, there is an entire industry that talks about material selections and paints and indoor air quality and forestry and other sourcing issues. But for us, at ecobeco, we’re primarily focused on reducing energy consumption. And of course, the first thing we would recommend to someone is a home energy audit; which will look at the way that air moves through the home and will look at the way that people consume energy on a day to day basis. So what we would call the base load, things such as your lighting, your refrigeration, your use of ovens and washers and driers and so forth. And then of course, heating and cooling which in the mid Atlantic may not be as substantial as say, the Northeast or the Southeast but we still get a pretty substantial amount of heating and cooling. So when we focus on looking at the movement of air in someone’s house, we’re really trying to get at looking at ways to reduce the frequency that air changes through the house. So when you can control the way that air moves in and out of a house, it means that your heating or your cooling stays in the house longer and that’s a way to save you money. When your air conditioning or your heating system doesn’t have to work as hard. So the home energy audit uses scientific tools and that’s a big difference between what five years ago, you could have purchased what was called a home energy audit from the windows companies. That product was essentially, then, walking around your house and saying, you need new windows. And it was shocking how often you needed new windows when you bought your energy audit from a windows firm. But with us, we are using a product from the building performance institute which is a certifying group. It’s an ANSI standard that is used to certify home energy auditors and we have a methodology that uses equipment such as a blower door tester, or an infrared camera, and we use energy modeling software. From the results of those tests, you can compare what your house is actually doing to what it could be doing. And then, based on the level of investment that a customer might be willing to make, you can make improvements to the home to both increase the comfort and reduce energy consumption.

E: So this way, you really know how to prioritize what you should do first; how you’re going to get the most bang for your buck.

Toll: That’s absolutely right. The energy model is very insightful. If I had 100 dollars to spend, I would upgrade my lights to the LED lighting. If I had several thousands of dollars to spend, I would focus on tightening my building envelope and increasing my insulation levels. And then as your budget expands, you can think about ways to improve indoor air quality because just as — when you have pollution that comes into your home from the outside and you can have

pollution that comes into your home from things that you are doing inside your home. And when the building envelope gets tighter, you need to be more cognizant that those pollutants are getting filtered and diluted, so that they have less impact on occupants. So as we invest more in making our home tighter, we also, at the same time, invest more in ensuring indoor air quality. And those are things that you don’t necessarily hear about unless you’re talking to people who have really done their homework and have gone through the standard training programs that are available.

E: Okay so obviously you’ve got insulation, you’ve got ceiling ducts, ceiling windows, things like that. That’s for the envelope, right? And then, you have some kind of mechanical system; would that be a fan or a ventilation to make sure that the air does circulate?

Toll: Yeah. So the most recent technologies in heating, ventilation — heating, cooling, and ventilation are using fans that have a lot more smarts. And they’re able to vary the speeds that they run and they’re able to incorporate information about how temperature is changing in your house. How fast it’s changing and counterbalance that with a more appropriate response.

Compared to, say, in the older equipment, where it would turn on full blast or turn off. And turn on at full blast and turn off. That approach, a lot of people have heard that you’re wasting a lot of energy when we short-cycling, meaning, on/off, on/off, and it’s better for the system in terms of how the fans are designed and the systems are designed for the fans to turn on and run for half an hour or an hour. And what that can do is it ensures that you’re getting more air circulating, which means more air through the returns; which means more air through your filter. So what you want to have is both air being filtered on a relatively constant basis and you also want to have the air being diluted. Which means if you live in a tighter home, you want to bring fresh air in from outside. If you live in a older home or a home that is, from our point of view, not considered tight, you usually don’t have to worry about the ventilation impacts.

E: Okay but it all starts with an energy audit and then you have to find the company that knows what it’s doing.

Toll: That’s right, and in our area, we happen to have a home performance with Energy Star program. Which is affiliated with all of the utilities in Maryland, and they have a list on their website and you can just go to the utility and look up the home performance program. I think there are home performance programs in about 15 states in the U.S.

E: And there are a lot of states that give some kind of incentive also, right? But what about if people don’t live in a state with such a program; is there a way to go about shopping for the best installer or the best energy audit?

Toll: I think the best thing to do is there is a website, BPI.org, which is the Building Performance Institute’s website and the certified installers and the certified energy auditors are listed on that site. So you can do a search for the folks that are subscribing to the philosophies of doing best in class work. And you find those people and they can give you better information about what you need to do. Because it’s a triple bottom line investment, you may find that they could give you an energy model that has a very long payback period because energy prices are not as high as I think a lot of people expected because of the natural gas boom. So the reason that people are making these investments is because it saves energy, it helps the environment, and it makes their home much more comfortable. And increasingly, we’re seeing some evidence that people who make these investments can see some gain on the property value of their homes and that’s not obvious in a lot of places. But there’s more and more evidence that the appraisers are being trained on green attributes of homes and we’re seeing on the order of 5-10% increases in the values of homes. Or, alternatively, some homes that are selling faster and this may be the Prius effect that people with certain values want to live in those homes. But for right now, the research is emerging and I’m very hopeful that we’re going to see more and more homeowners saying, I want to live in a clean, energy efficient environment inside my house. Not just the outdoor air but the indoor air too.

E: Right, which is good for your health also.

Toll: It absolutely is and there’s been a lot of work done, even in the past few years, from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, talking about the impacts on particles. PM 2.5 is a pollutant particle. It impacts the lungs. Over the long term, it can increase your risk of strokes and heart attack because of the additional pressure it puts on lung function. So people who are living near the streets, very busy streets, where the gasoline gas goes, would be well served to put systems in their home that help improve the indoor air quality. And then people, generally speaking, would also be helped.

E: I keep reading about PM 2.5 and China and India but it’s in some of our homes too.

Toll: It absolutely is here, in Maryland and everywhere in the U.S. and thank goodness we don’t have the levels of pollution of Delhi or other places but yes, it still impacts us here. It still can reduce our life, how long we’re going to live; so whatever we can do is always helpful.

E: Sure. So ecobeco has been quite successful despite the cheap energy, which might be good for the economy but is not so good for the environment. But where do you see yourself going from here? Do you have some grand future vision or even just a short term plan? What’s the next step?

Toll: So about a year and a half ago, ecobeco decided to expand our products from the energy efficiency focus to remodeling in general. So we are now offering full service remodeling, which would include using sustainable materials and clean building practices when we go to a home to do an addition or a remodel or whatever it is that the customer might want. We’re doing it in an eco-friendly options kind of way. So there are certainly people who want to put a lower priority on these things; there are some people who think, oh, it’s too expensive, I don’t want to do that. But we have local suppliers who are aligned with our values and those suppliers will give people the option that aligns with their values. So you can decide how much you want to spend and we will have supplies that are as green as you want to be.

E: Can you — green materials or, when you define them, I think of bamboo but I also think of like, local products. What does it mean to build a house of green materials?

Toll: So for me, I would say it has more to do with the sourcing. So bamboo is an example of a positive sourcing, but there could be other kinds of resourcing such as recycled content or a sustainable forestry service, SFC certified. And then, the other part is that we want to make sure that there’s low to no VOC emissions from the material so that we don’t have adhesives or we don’t have wood products that are going to make people sick once they move into the house. So we’re focused on those issues. And then while we’re constructing, we’re using all of the best practices to keep the dust and the dirt out of the house because most of the time, people are living at home while we’re doing the work. And we need to be cognizant of their health.

E: So again, you have a health and air quality issue.

Toll: Mhm.

E: Okay, any last words or final comments?

Toll: I’m optimistic that the spirit of businesses offering more green solutions for customers… it’s been getting started for a very long time, and I continue to be optimistic that we can make a big difference in our planet. And we know that the rubber meets the road in the kind of work that we’re doing every day, from lightbulbs to insulation to remodeling. And we’re just going to keep trying and hopefully make a difference over time.

Jessica Grannis is Adaptation Program Director for the Georgetown Climate Center at Georgetown University Law Center. In this role, Grannis works with cities and states on the legal aspects of adapting to the impacts of climate change. She has published and presented widely on adapting to sea level rise and coastal resilience. Prior to her current role, Grannis was Staff Attorney for the California State Coastal Conservancy and Ocean Protection Council. Following the recent devastation of Houston and Florida, Grannis provided testimony to Congress on rebuilding and preparing for future challenges. EarthTalk’s Ethan Goffman caught up with her at her office in Downtown Washington, DC…

EarthTalk: Okay so Greater Houston was built in a sprawling manner. What impact did that have on Hurricane Harvey? How well prepared was the region for such a hurricane?

Jessica Grannis: Yeah, so many experts are saying that the land use and development patterns throughout the Houston region really exacerbated the flood risk that this region faced; natural landscapes are much better at managing rainfall and allowing that water to percolate into the soil and when you have large-scale development and you’re paving over the flood plain, that exacerbates flood risk. So part of the flood impacts that were experienced in this region were a factor—caused by some of those development patterns but as the climate changes, this region is going to see much more risk of extreme storms like Hurricane Harvey and Ike before it. These massive rainfall events, the region has seen three 500-year flood events over the course of the last couple of years. They’re going to see more heatwaves because it’s in a warm part of the country, and they’re going to see more challenges in terms of water supply and drought.

E: So it sounds like climate change is the big villain here but there are other factors, maybe loss of wetlands, maybe the way people built or just overbuilt there?

Grannis: Yeah, it’s a combination of factors. The land use patterns and development is one factor. The fact that it’s a very low lying city and it’s built on bayous that are designed to drain that water but because it’s low-lying, it drains pretty slowly. So when you get a rainfall of this magnitude, it just fills that basin and causes impacts to the city for a long period of time and then you have a combination of sea level rise, so the storm was riding on an additional two feet of sea level rise that they’ve seen in the last century and that’s a combination of also subsiding land because of oil extraction and water extraction, this region is actually sinking.

E: So it sounds like I’m not going to move there. It sounds like magic a strategic retreat but I know some people are going to want to come back and rebuild. So as they do rebuild, what can be done to make it less vulnerable to hurricanes and other environmental disasters?

Grannis: One of the challenges that this region faces is that Houston is one of the only major metropolitan areas that doesn’t have a climate adaptation plan; so they don’t have a plan in the books that helps them understand what climate change is going to mean in terms of their impacts. So it’s going to be much harder for them to take Federal disaster recovery dollars and rebuild in a way that’s climate smart. But they can learn from the some of the best practices that have been adopted in other cities and regions, like making room for rivers and bayous to manage that water. So they could do strategic buyouts around bayous and restore those natural floodplains to let nature do its work and manage that floodwater, and those techniques have worked for places like Tulsa, Oklahoma and Charlotte-Mecklenburg County where they’ve done a lot of buyouts that have significantly reduced their flood losses in recent events. They could do things like deploying green infrastructure which is like taking out the paved roads and sidewalks and other surfaces throughout urban environments and reintroducing natural landscapes and features that better manage storm water and follow the examples of places like here in D.C, where they’re deploying green infrastructure across the city or places like New Orleans where they’re using that approach. And they can adopt better floodplain land use practices and make sure that where people are building, that they’re building to be more resilient to future climate change and they’re leaving natural landscapes where they can and building in ways that will be better for the future.

E: So a lot of green scapes, just working with nature instead of against nature. The fact that they don’t have a climate plan, is politics behind that or climate denial or…

Grannis: I think there’s a lot of progressive folks in Houston. Climate adaptation plans are not a requirement; many cities have adopted them because there are state incentives to do so or they use federal dollars to do so but they’re not a Federal requirement. So a lot of cities just are not spending their resources in that way.

E: Okay, so we’ll see if Houston changes course in the future. And then turning to Florida, how does that compare to Houston because the ground is different and you didn’t have the same flooding but how does it compare in terms of sprawl and disaster preparation and how can it recover in a resilient way?

Grannis: Florida faces similar challenges, from sea level rise and coastal storms, salt water intrusion and heat, it was a different storm event. People were more concerned about wind damage and surge versus Harvey which was really a rain event. But one of the success stories from Florida might be the changes that the state made after Hurricane Andrew to update its state building codes. Many of the newer buildings in the state were designed to withstand these higher winds and floods and so the state may have significantly reduced the damages that they experienced during Irma because of smart practices like modern building codes. Another benefit that Florida may see in terms of rebuilding is that there is a lot of climate leadership in southeast Florida. The counties from the Keys up to Palm Beach all participate in the southeast Florida compact, where they’ve developed a regional climate action plan, including taking preparation to adapt to future climate impacts. And so they’re well teed up to use these Federal disaster recovery dollars to make significant changes in terms of infrastructure and how they’re building after Irma.

E: So the local government is forward looking but state government, maybe not so much? Is that going to impact the rebuilding?

Grannis: So one of the reasons why the compact formed was because when the Crist administration transitioned to the Scott administration, there was less focus on climate preparedness and climate action and so the local government in southeast Florida took on that leadership and really decided to push forward. There’s a lot of powers that local government has but it’s better to have a state that’s a partner in preparedness actions and helping advocate on behalf of the local governments and making sure that they have the flexibility they need to use the disaster recovery dollars to rebuild in a way that’s more resilient to future climate change.

E: Okay. So national leadership would help, state would, but local, they are able to do a lot and work together. Turning back to the petrochemical industry on the Gulf Coast. So parts of Houston are quite contaminated, right, and it might be kind of stirred up in water to make a polluted stew and I’m thinking of like, Port Arthur. So what can be done to help residents of the most vulnerable areas recover?

Grannis: I think that’s going to be one of the biggest travesties from Harvey is the toxics and contamination that’s being spread by the floodwaters and more needs to be done in terms of monitoring and testing floodwaters and working with public health officials to make sure that affected communities have the resources they need to limit the health effects of those who have been exposed. In terms of future efforts, more needs to be done to prevent these kind of flood impacts to these highly hazardous facilities so that we’re not seeing this contamination spread throughout residences and businesses.

E: Okay. So do you think some of these neighborhoods will be able to recover?

Grannis: It’s hard when you have this level of contamination spreading. It gets into the soils, it gets into people’s building materials, so it’s going to be a really difficult thing to recover from and make sure you’re not having public health—longterm public health effects from all of this contamination.

E: Right. You don’t want children growing up in some of these areas, playing in the grass or whatever.

Grannis: They’re telling people to avoid all of the soils and sands that are cropping up as the floodwater recedes. So it’s a scary situation.

E: Okay. Turning to the National Flood Insurance Program, there have been critics saying it’s actually encouraging people to build in the wrong places because they know the government is going to come in and save them. They don’t have to buy their own insurance. Do you agree that such programs need to be rethought and if so, how?

Grannis: The Federal Flood Insurance Program could use some reforms. People do purchase flood insurance, it’s just a Federal program versus a private program. Part of the challenge is that it’s been subsidized since it was created so many properties are not paying the full risk rate of their actual flood risk but it is the last line of defense that homes and businesses have to recover in the event of flood losses. So one of the big sticking points in terms of reforming the federal flood insurance program is making sure that rates are still affordable for folks that are lower income homeowners; to make sure that they’re able to have the insurance payouts needed for them to recover. But other reforms that have been talked about are just encouraging more people to buy-in into the program. In Houston, the rates of coverage were under 20% in some parts of the city which means that a lot of people just don’t have the insurance they’re going to need to be able to afford their own recovery. The flood insurance program needs to look at how climate change is affecting these storm events, how sea level rise and change in patterns are going to exacerbate flood risks in communities and make sure that we’re pricing insurance affordably and that we’re making the maps reflect those changing flood risks.

E: So do you think like, more buyouts might be a solution? It seems like equity and preparation for likely future events are kind of in conflict here.

Grannis: Well one of the reforms that’s being debated on the Hill right now is looking at severe repetitive loss properties. So properties that repeatedly flood and some that flood way over the—have flood claims way over the value of the house, to require those properties to eventually be bought out or not be covered under the flood insurance program anymore. But the flood insurance program itself doesn’t do buyouts, that’s paid for by other programs, but it can help to take out some of those most repeated claiming properties.

E: Okay, so it already corrects to an extent.

Grannis: That’s just being debated, it’s not law yet.

E: Okay, so they’re talking so that’s a suggested law right now, but that seems like it would be a very good idea.

Jessica: There’s challenges in terms of buyouts because these are people’s homes and communities and there’s social dislocation that comes with buyouts. So places like New Orleans looked at how they can relocate whole communities out of floodplains and do land swaps so that they can relocate communities together. They’re looking at relocating at the Isle de Jean Charles Tribe in Louisiana after land losses kind of…

E: And I know, New Orleans of course has a tremendous history in the U.S. and I’m sure we’d rather recover if we can, but I guess there are painful choices to be made.

Grannis: Yes

E: Okay. So climate change, as you’ve already said, means that all of these problems are likely to get worse in the future. I guess it’s kind of an intensifier of what’s already dangerous anyway, although this kind of flooding was something new in Houston. So I’m looking at the very big picture, what are some key ways that cities can rebuild to become more resilient and to prepare for a difficult future?

Grannis: Climate change is going to be a threat multiplier so if you’re already seeing flooding, you’re going to see more flooding. If you’re already seeing heatwaves, you’re going to see more heatwaves. So the first step is to understand how climate change is going to exacerbate risks of natural hazards for your community so you understand what your risks are, and then there’s a range of strategies that communities can take to reduce those risks. Everything from adopting to higher building codes to prepare for those big storms that we know are going to be more frequent and intense, to elevating structures so that they’re better able to withstand these flood events, to building buildings so that they’re more resilient to heatwaves and can protect people in place during heat events. Communities are looking at things like micro-grids so that critical facilities like hospitals and senior centers stay online during storm events when greater power outages are out, to save lives during these big storm events. So there’s a number of different strategies that communities around the country are employing to enhance their resilience to these future events.

E: Okay. So there is at least some hope if we think ahead and prepare.

]]>https://earthtalk.org/interview-jessica-grannis-georgetown-climate-center/feed/017753no Georgetown's Jessica Grannis works with cities and states on the legal aspects of adapting to the impacts of climate change... The post Interview: Jessica Grannis on Climate Resilience &#038; Planning for a Warmer World appeared first on EarthTalk.org. Roddy Scheer Georgetown's Jessica Grannis works with cities and states on the legal aspects of adapting to the impacts of climate change... The post Interview: Jessica Grannis on Climate Resilience &#038; Planning for a Warmer World appeared first on EarthTalk.org. environment,environmental,sustainability,green,living,solar,green,interview,Q,Ahttps://earthtalk.org/interview-jessica-grannis-georgetown-climate-center/http://earthtalk.org/wp-content/uploads/grannis-podcast.mp3Alexa Kleysteuber Talks California’s Global Leadership Role on Climatehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PodcastEarthtalkorg/~3/dO0HZBcy5SY/
https://earthtalk.org/alexa-kleysteuber/#respondTue, 11 Jul 2017 18:26:40 +0000roddy@earthtalk.org (Roddy Scheer)http://earthtalk.org/?p=17393Alexa Kleysteuber of the California Environmental Protection Agency discusses how and why her state is taking a global leadership role on the climate issue.

Alexa Kleysteuber is Deputy Secretary for Border and Intergovernmental Relations at the California Environmental Protection Agency where she works to facilitate climate cooperation among states and even with other countries. Alexa’s wide-ranging perspective crosses state and national boundaries. She previously worked as a project manager for the United Nations Development Program where she coordinated regional policy dialogues and as Climate Change Policy Advisor for the government of Chile. She holds an Master’s degree from the London School of Economics and a BA from UNC at Chapel Hill. Only 34 years old, Alexa will be making a big impact on environmental policy for a long time to come. EarthTalk’s Ethan Goffman caught up with her recently via Skype…

EarthTalk: California has long been a leader in environmental standards, for instance, in solar power and in emissions standards for cars. With Donald Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement, what role can California play to help compensate for the vacuum in U.S. leadership?

Alexa Kleysteuber: I think California can play a number of roles, in particular now that the President has decided to pull out of the Paris Agreement.

I think we play the role of leader. As you mentioned, we’ve been a leader on a number of specific, ambitious policies over the years. We play the role of frontrunner in that sense.

I think we’re also a test case, if you will, for a number of those different policies.

We are also hopefully a catalyst, now that other states and other regions, other cities and jurisdictions can see that our policies do work, and that they not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but actually help grow the economy.

I think California can be a convener. As the sixth largest economy, we definitely have a say in bringing others together. And you’ve seen that recently through the new U.S. Climate Alliance that the Governor has launched after Paris.

I think on the international stage, we play the role of providing assurance, and really keeping that momentum with the international community after the Paris Agreement was adopted and ratified. There will be many obviously looking at the gap in the U.S. at the federal level, and feeling worried that maybe they shouldn’t go on with their ambition, or that they can do less now that the U.S. has stepped back on the federal level. But, in fact, you haven’t seen that. You’ve seen large emitters, like China in particular, really stepping to the table, and India as well, saying that they will continue with their nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement.

I think that California plays a large part in really providing that assurance, that even if the federal government is stepping back, there is still a lot of ambition and action in the United States, led by California and others, that can really keep this momentum going throughout these next four years.

E: So is it fair to say basically you’re doing more of the same, only better? Or is there something new or qualitatively different about the way you’re going to be acting now that we’re out of the Paris Agreement nationally?

Kleysteuber: I think in terms of the ambition of our policies, that remains the same. We’ve always had very high ambition. We have one of the highest targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the country, and in fact in the world. We have a legally-binding target of reaching 40% below our 1990 levels by 2030. That’s in line with a science-based target to set us on the path to not surpassing 2 degrees Celsius.

So, we’ll continue with that overall target. We’ll continue with our 50% renewable electricity goal by 2030, 50% reduction in petroleum use and vehicles, doubling energy efficiency of existing buildings, and our mandate of getting 1.5 million zero emission vehicles on the road by 2025. I think, you know, all of those quantitative targets remain the same, and remain just as ambitious.

The goal right now isn’t necessarily ratcheting each one of those up; it’s actually trying to figure out how to best communicate, as I said, and give that assurance to the world that we are continuing on, that we will meet those targets that are already in place, that we’ll continue our policies, and look for new opportunities as well, when the time comes.

But really it’s about sharing that story, and trying to bring others on board as well, so whether that’s U.S. states through the U.S. Climate Alliance, or internationally, other regions, states, and cities through the Under2 Coalition. It’s a ratcheting up of that international—and also national—communication. It’s sharing experiences and lessons learned to really try to give others a push to come on board.

E: So, since you mentioned that, let’s talk a little bit more about these alliances with other states and countries, starting with the states. I know you’re teaming up with New York and Washington and others. How can you work together with these other states to synchronize and accomplish things that you’re not going to accomplish on your own?

Kleysteuber: As you mentioned, the Governor has launched—after the President pulled out of Paris—a U.S. Climate Alliance, which currently includes twelve other U.S. states, plus Puerto Rico. We’ve made a big effort to reach out to not only blue states but also red states. We currently have two of those twelve states that are Republican states. That’s Massachusetts and Vermont.

With these other states, I think there’s a number of tracks that it’s good to work on as we start to collaborate more closely together. One communication.

In terms of policies, we already have been cooperating with a number of these states, whether it’s with the Pacific states or other states, on vehicle emissions standards, on carbon pricing. There’s already a lot of cooperation on the technical side, but I think where these new alliances add value is issues like communication, where we may need to be communicating to the federal government about what we’re doing, or about how we’d like to defend policies that we already have in place that we’d like to continue; how we feel about what they’re doing at the federal level in terms of pulling out of Paris, or their work on the Clean Power Plan.

So I think there’ll be a lot of opportunities to bring these states together, and coordinate more closely on our communication efforts to make sure that we’re getting the messages we need together, collectively, to the federal government.

There’s also an opportunity to work on policies. Whether that is zero-emission vehicles, or increasing renewables in the energy grid, there’s a lot of opportunities for states to share their existing policies, the challenges and how they overcame them, to try potentially to harmonize a number of those policies that maybe other states are considering putting in place.

So, there’s definitely the potential for high-level political, slash, communication work, but also, at the technical level, to try to spread some of those most successful policies and most ambitious policies to other states that are interested in acting on climate change.

E: I know Massachusetts and Vermont currently have a Republican governor, but they are not generally thought of as Republican states. But it does show some flexibility at the state level.

Kleysteuber: That’s correct, yes.

The Governors Alliance is at the governors’ level, and it does include those two Republican governors, but, you’re right, just having a Republican governor is different from the challenges faced by those in states where their legislature as well—and the whole political system—is dominated by the Republican Party.

I think we’re always looking for new allies, and there’s always the hope that we will get that, quote-unquote, pure red state to come on board. So we’re always talking to others, and seeing where those opportunities lie.

E: Right. Because even in the red states, there is a local environmentalism, maybe, that doesn’t see itself as attached to the Democratic Party or Paris, but, it’s there. And speaking of other allies, one place to find them seems to be the city level, where there’s a really strong alliance of mayors to increase sustainability, not just in the U.S. but internationally. Is California working with that group, and specific cities or organizations, and if so, how?

Kleysteuber: Yes, there is the Climate Mayors group, which you referenced. So that’s 343 mayors, I believe at this point, who have pledged to adopt the Paris Agreement, and really support the goals that are outlined therein as well. Then in parallel to that, there’s also this new U.S. Climate Alliance, which I mentioned, which is just at the governors’ level, so at the states’ level. There’s also the Under2 Coalition, which California founded in 2015 in the run-up to the Paris Agreement, which brings together states, cities, and regions who have an ambitious target on climate change, so who are looking to reduce their emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

There in that group, in the Under2 Coalition, there are a number of cities that California works with. There are eight cities currently that are in the U.S. who have signed on to the Coalition, four of which are in California. To this point, the focus for us in the state has been bring on board other states, but through Under2, as you can see, we also work with cities, and even include national endorsers. National governments are able to endorse the fact that some nationals are a part of the solution—that’s where a lot of the policies take place—and support that effort.

So, to answer your question, there’s not a direct line, there’s not really a direct conversation. I think what’s happening after Paris is that everyone is stepping to the table. Everybody’s doing their part at their level. I think that’s really important to let a thousand flowers bloom, if you will, so that all of these non-party or non-national actors can come to the table in their own way and build their own alliances and see how far we get, and then down the road we’ll need to try to figure out how best to help each other, and how best to support each other, and what the overlap is, and how we create synergies as opposed to running up against each other.

So, I think those conversations will come. At this point, California has been very open to working with our cities and with others, through inclusion in the Under2 Coalition.

E: Great. So, they’re burgeoning and evolving, and the blueprint is still being laid out. “Under2” refers to keeping it under two degrees Centigrade, which is what we want to avoid the worst effects of climate change, right?

Kleysteuber: Yes, absolutely. There’s the reference to the two degree target, the well below two degrees, that’s laid out in the Paris Agreement. There’s also a reference to the fact that in the Under2 Coalition, the goal, as I mentioned, is to reduce emissions 80% below 1990 by 2050, or to achieve a two ton per capita goal for Under2 Coalition jurisdiction populations by 2050.

So there’s a number of “twos” really that we’re aiming for, if we want to maintain our overall average temperature increase globally to under two degrees.

E: A pretty clever title. Let’s now move to the international level, because I know your state has been talking to Mexico and Canada, even to China, about how to work together to fight climate change. So, what’s the content of these discussions, and how are the countries planning on working together with the State of California and perhaps other states?

Kleysteuber: Obviously Canada and Mexico are huge partners for California, huge trade partners and political partners, and just everything in between. There always has been an effort, I would say, from California to work very closely both with Canada and with Mexico on climate issues and on a number of other issues. And we do have, as you mentioned, a number of arrangements in place, and memoranda of understanding to work with both of these partners on climate change.

With Canada, the focus has historically been on carbon pricing, and really integrating those Canadian provinces that are interested in carbon pricing into our California program. As you know, we have already been linked with Quebec for a number of years now, and we are in the process of linking with Ontario. So, there are two provinces in Canada where there’s already a very clear and formal link between them and us on our climate change targets, and on how we meet those targets.

Canada has also recently signed on as a national endorser of the Under2 Coalition, so again they’re supporting that overall ambitious and science-driven goal.

With Mexico, they not only are a national endorser of the Under2 Coalition, they also have ten Mexican states that have endorsed the Under2 Coalition and are working towards that overall goal, and the work program that we have under the Under2 Coalition, which includes transparency, so how you measure, report, and verify greenhouse gas emissions. It includes collaboration on specific policies, so whether that’s zero-emission vehicles, or carbon pricing, or forestry, there’s work going on there.

Then the third is 2050 Pathways. That’s an effort to encourage all Under2 jurisdictions to do long term low emissions development planning, where they establish these long term goals and then see what large changes in the economy are needed to bring about those emissions reductions.

So, we’re working with Mexico, and with Canada, under the framework of the Under2 Coalition on those goals. With Mexico we even go further, I’d say, because we have, since 2014, a specific memorandum of understanding between California and Mexico on climate change and the environment, where we have four working groups that address climate change, zero-emission vehicles, clean air, and wildfires. That’s a very hands-on effort that involves two co-chairs for each topic—one from Mexico and one from California—and in some cases biweekly calls between the technical agencies in each place that work on those issues.

Then there are concrete actions, whether it’s workshops, or trainings, or just information sharing—documents that are translated that Mexico might want to use, or refer to, or build off of in their policies. There’s a lot of concrete collaboration that’s happening there.

E: So a lot of sharing of practices and ideas. Is it fair to say much of this was going on before Trump, for the past several years? So, have you noticed since Trump came into office, and especially since the pullout from Paris, have there been noticeable changes in the negotiations, and in the tone or the substance, or—building on my earlier question—is it basically just an acceleration of what was already happening?

Kleysteuber: It’s a good question. I think it’s hard to separate the two. What we can say is that there certainly was a larger trend happening before the election, and before this president pulled out of the Paris Agreement. You can see it dating back ten years to Governor Schwarzenegger signing into law AB 32 and establishing that ambitious goal at the time to achieve 1990 levels by 2020. You saw it in the establishment of the emissions trading program—the cap-and-trade program—that California is famous for around the world, and is one of the main reasons why other jurisdictions in other countries come to us to learn about that program.

So, you definitely saw an opening up, even at that point. And that was also in response to a federal administration that perhaps, in the eyes of the world, wasn’t doing its full part. So, there was definitely an impetus there that has continued.

I think the Paris Agreement was also a big turning point for California, where California started getting engaged much more on that U.N. process level. California took to Paris the Under2 Coalition that it had already launched earlier that year. By the time of Paris we were up to about a hundred signatories, and that really helped create some pressure and some momentum, and some assurance to the international community that they could go farther and deeper with the Paris Agreement, and that the expectations were high, and that in fact implementation and action were already happening on the ground. So, I think that was a big contribution that California already had back in 2015 in and around Paris and the Paris Agreement.

But, I think you’ve certainly seen a change in the level of interest that other countries especially have in California on the political level. There’s always been a technical interest—and I referred to cap and trade in particular—but now you really see, since the election, an increase in the political interest. The Secretary of the Environment was actually in Marrakech at the time of last year’s COP—last year’s big climate change meeting—when the election happened, and you could see almost immediately the uptick in the level and the number of other international delegations and high level representatives wanting to reach out to California and sit down with California to say, OK, in this time of Donald Trump, how can California step up, and fill the gap or, again, provide this assurance that things are really happening and will continue to happen in the United States over these next four years, and how can you encourage other U.S. states to come on board, and how can we share this message throughout the world?

So, there obviously has been an uptick, especially in that political interest.

You also referenced the Governor’s trip to China. He was able to sit down with President Xi and have a conversation about climate change. You’ve seen very recently the Minister of Environment of Germany come to California specifically to meet with the Governor about climate change and what’s happening at the federal level, and California’s role in all of this. You’ve seen the Prime Minister of Fiji come to California, also in the last couple weeks, to talk with the Governor and to announce that Governor Brown has been named as the Climate Envoy for states and regions to the COP presidency for this upcoming COP23.

So, yes, it’s not business as usual in the sense that California has a leadership role, and is willing to step up and take on that leadership role. But in terms of policies and ambition, we do see it kind of as business as usual. We still have our ambitious targets. We’re continuing towards meeting them, and will continue all of our policies that help us meet them. And also of course we’re always looking at how we can improve, as we have done over the past many years.

E: Of course, there’s a vacuum, and you’re rushing in to at least partly fill it—the black hole of the Trump Administration. But it does seem in some ways like California’s acting almost like its own sovereign nation. Is that fair to say, maybe too extreme, do you see this as temporary because of the excesses of the Trump Administration, or, with cities taking a larger role, maybe international governance is actually shifting, and California’s part of that? So, big picture, how do you see that

Kleysteuber: Big picture. Well, I’m not a lawyer, but I have worked in the U.N. climate change negotiations for a long time before being in California. Now since being in California, and having had that experience with the U.N. process, I’m very aware of the Compact Clause and a number of other things that definitely on the legal side point to the fact that California is not going to be ever really a party, for example, to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. At that level that we know that California is not going to supplant or usurp any federal role, because that’s not allowed by the Constitution.

So, given those sets of limitations, I don’t think California is looking to do that at all. We certainly are filling our role as the sixth largest economy, and as a leader in ambition and in a lot of these innovative policies, and in innovation itself, with Silicon Valley based here. I think we just really see our role as filling that hole, as it were, and giving assurance to the world that the U.S. is not going to fall off the map in terms of working towards ambitious emissions reductions.

But I think in recent years—and you can see this through cities’ activity, thorough states’ activity, and other non-state actors: the private sector, investors, the finance community—we’ve seen a lot more recognition that, for example, climate change is not going to be solved just at the United Nations level. It’s not going to get solved by an international treaty, be it legally binding or not. That’s not what’s going to make or break whether we save the planet from climate change.

Because, after all, all of that action that’s been agreed to under the Paris Agreement, for example, has to be implemented by states, by cities, with local regulations, local incentives, local policies, and local leadership. So I think you really are seeing that recognition that the action takes place on the ground locally, and that just having an international piece of paper signed saying that you want to stay well below two degrees is not enough. You have to have this bottom-up piece as well.

You need them working in parallel. I think they’re both important. But you certainly see that broader recognition, I think, after Paris

So, in that sense, California’s playing our part in that. And, yes, I think that has been catalyzed by the recent election. So, maybe that’s a good thing. Everybody’s taking up their individual roles and stepping up to the plate and seeing what they can do at home. Maybe that’ll actually help get us to the targets that we want to get to

]]>https://earthtalk.org/alexa-kleysteuber/feed/017393no Alexa Kleysteuber of the California Environmental Protection Agency discusses how and why her state is taking a global leadership role on the climate issue. The post Alexa Kleysteuber Talks California&#8217;s Global Leadership Role on Climate appeared fiRoddy Scheer Alexa Kleysteuber of the California Environmental Protection Agency discusses how and why her state is taking a global leadership role on the climate issue. The post Alexa Kleysteuber Talks California&#8217;s Global Leadership Role on Climate appeared first on EarthTalk.org. environment,environmental,sustainability,green,living,solar,green,interview,Q,Ahttps://earthtalk.org/alexa-kleysteuber/http://earthtalk.org/wp-content/uploads/EarthTalk-Podcast-Kleysteuber.mp3Mustafa Ali on Moving Forward on Environmental Justice Despite Trumphttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PodcastEarthtalkorg/~3/7WoBF73ujpY/
https://earthtalk.org/mustafa-ali/#respondTue, 23 May 2017 23:28:28 +0000roddy@earthtalk.org (Roddy Scheer)http://earthtalk.org/?p=17219Mustafa Ali, a founder of EPA's environmental justice office, discusses moving forward on environmental justice even without the support of President Trump.

This week on EarthTalk Radio, we welcome Mustafa Ali, a founder of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Department of Environmental Justice, where he served from 1992 until this year. During his 24 year tenure, Ali worked across agencies to advance environmental, health and economic justice and acted as a legislative assistant on foreign policy. Over the course of his career, he gave more than 2000 presentations and worked with more than 1,000 communities — and was the Environmental Justice Lead for the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Ali has served as a Brookings Institution Congressional Fellow and has been a guest lecturer at Yale and other universities as well as a blogger and radio host.

Currently, he is the Senior Vice President of Climate, Environmental Justice and Community Revitalization for the Hip Hop Caucus, which organizes activists from ages 14- 40 on social justice issues. EarthTalk’s Ethan Goffman interviewed him in the Hip Hop Caucus office in downtown DC…

EarthTalk: So what’s your quick definition of environmental justice, and why is it so important?

Ali: The government defines environmental justice as the disproportionate impacts in people of color and low-income communities. I think for most regular folks, when we say Flint, we understand what environmental injustice is. When communities are being impacted by led, when their voices are not being heard, or allowed to be a driver in the situation. Or if we said Sandy Rock, and we know that indigenous populations have been trying to protect our water quality. Not just for themselves, but for the entire country, also protecting the cultural heritage that exists on native lands. Those are examples of environmental injustices, when folks’ voice are not allowed to be a part of the process and they’re not a driver, and they’re being exposed to toxic exposures.

E: Okay, great. Can you talk a little bit about the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice, which you were one of the founders about twenty four years ago, and what it does…

Ali: Sure. The Office of Environmental Justice is a very unique entity, and the reason that I say that it’s unique is because it was actually created out of a set of recommendations from stakeholders. From folks from grassroots organizations, academia, and a number of other stakeholders, back in the late eighties and early nineties had a set of recommendations that they shared with the administrator William Reilly, saying that there needed to be a place in the Federal Government where communities with environmental injustices had a voice and also where we could begin to think forward on policy, on creating the right types of economic opportunities on grant programs, and the creation of FACE-US [Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations]. So the Office of Environmental Justice, which was first the Office of Environmental Equity, and then became the Office of Environmental Justice, gives voice to those communities who are often forgotten, or overlooked and marginalized.

E: Okay great. So it gives them power to fund their own status, relative to incinerators…

Ali: Exactly. When we’re dealing with landfills, it gives people an intersection point to be able to begin the conversation to make change, and so many other examples.

E: At which point, would have just always ended up in poor and minority neighborhoods who didn’t have access.

Ali: Yes. When we look at the environmental injustices that are happening, they are primarily happening in communities of color, and low-income communities, and on indigenous lands.

E: Right. Okay, so what about now that we have Donald Trump and the world has changed. What is the current status and likely future of the Office of Environmental Justice, and how is it actually going to effect people’s lives on the ground?

Ali: Well there is a proposal to eliminate the Office of Environmental Justice, like there are proposals out there to eliminate a number of those very important offices inside the Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal agencies. If that happens, what we will see is that more people will get sick, and unfortunately more folks will die. If the regulations that they’re proposing getting rid of, if that comes to be, again, more people will get sick and more people will die, and that’s why it’s so important for folks to get engaged. For folks to share their voices and expectations, both to the Environmental Protection Agency, to administrative Pruitt, and also to the President, but also to those men and women on Capitol Hill. Let your voices be heard, let them know what your expectations are. Let them know that they should be valuing the lives of these communities. So we have power, we just have to make sure that we utilize it so that folks understand what our expectations are.

E: Right, and even if they don’t cut the office completely, they’ve already cut it so much that it can’t really function properly.

Ali: Yes. So you know, there are those budget cuts that are in the making right now, which will definitely weaken the office, but we also have to make sure that not only are we working on the Federal level, but also working with the states to make sure that they are also honoring and working on environmental justice issues, and the beauty of the moment is that folks are finally starting to come out of their silos. Folks are realizing that we’re all in this together, and that we need to be working on common goals and working to protect peoples’ lives.

E: We have seen some unique forming alliances at the many marches in Washington D.C.

Ali: The marches are a prime example. I think we started with the Women’s March. I don’t think there were some that thought that as many women would show up, but they showed up in force, made sure their voices were heard, and then they got engaged back on the local level. When you move to the Science March, most folks think scientists should just stay in their labs and just do the scientific work that’s necessary, but they also have realized that they need to make sure that their voices are heard also. To let people know that they are concerned and they care about what’s happening in communities, and they are invested in that space, and then People’s Climate March. Once again, hundreds of thousands of folks descended on Washington D.C, and very diverse. I think that’s the beauty of that march, you saw so many different types of folks who came to participate in the People’s Climate March, but not just here in Washington D.C, all across the country and literally across the world. Literally hundreds of thousands of folks made sure that not only were their bodies there, but their minds were there, their spirits were there, and there is a solidarity that is coming out of all of those movements. There is also accountability that is coming out. Folks are going back home, they’re getting engaged in the political process. They are folks who are going to run for office, who care about these issues, and that’s real power. They’re also going to hold those who are currently in office accountable, if they’re not doing the right things to protect communities and to build communities up.

E: Right, and it was just a different kind of [Inaudible: 00:06:11] then you would have seen in environmental protests in the past.

Ali: I would agree. I think it goes back to something that Dr. King shared with us decades ago now. He said we may have all come to these shores on different ships, but now we’re all in the same boat now. Nothing could be more true than under our current administration, which is helping us to realize that we’re all in this together. That the choices that are being made are going to impact all of us. Of course there will be even greater impacts in our most vulnerable communities, but I think that is galvanizing folks. It’s helping them to understand that we must come together to make this real change. We must come together that make sure that fossil fuels are not a part of our future direction, and we’re also making sure that we’re going to protect our most vulnerable communities.

E: Of course, fossil fuels, climate change, does impact the most vulnerable communities the hardest usually, which we saw in Katrina.

Ali: Our communities. As climate change and carbon plays out, most folks sometimes forget that most of those carbon polluting facilities are actually in our most vulnerable communities. So they take that hit right there in the beginning, and then, with the warming of the planet, they get the second whammy. So that’s another reason why we should be extremely focused on our most vulnerable communities if we’re serious about dealing with climate change.

E: And of course a lot of Native American reservations have become front lines for these issues with pipe lines and coal mines. What about the fact that the Trump administration has pulling information off of government websites, particularly about climate change? So how is this effecting either the Office of Environmental Justice or the broader environmental justice movement?

Ali: When you begin to eliminate information, that is a strategic plan to be able to weaken and dismantle programs, policies, activities. It also puts communities at a distinct disadvantage. Folks need to have an understanding of what’s inside of these communities, and how will these chemicals play a role in impacting their lives and their children’s lives. So I believe that there’s a real plan, when you begin to eliminate the access to information. When you begin to say science doesn’t matter. When you begin to dismiss scientists from advisory boards, then to me, that means that you don’t truly care about the health of our country, of our communities, or even the future generations, because you are putting them at a distinct disadvantage by removing that information, and then you also weaken policy. Without that scientific information, then you are guessing at best about the directions and the impacts from pollution. So we need to make sure that that information is available to everyone.

E: Right. How is the environmental justice movement working to counter all these threats, the disillusion in the office, the shredding of budgets, and the hiding of information. What steps are actually being taken?

Ali: The environmental justice movement, which has been around for over three decades so. Some would say even longer than that, but the flash point was in Warren County, North Carolina in the early eighties. The movement, the networks, organizations, and other individuals, and that goes back to folks breaking down silos, building authentic, collaborative partnerships where we’re all coming together. Folks are engaging with the EPA. When there are requests for information, folks are engaging in that process. People are protesting at the EPA, but they’re also being very mindful and working with their elected officials to let their elected officials know what their expectations are. If those expectations are not met, then they will find other individuals to represent them. So many of good conscience on Capitol Hill have the opportunity to do the right thing, and Mr. Pruitt has the opportunity also. If they don’t, there will be repercussions.

E: So individuals can actually get involved and make a difference. Any other suggestions on how, say, someone listening to this interview could get involved?

Ali: Oh, definitely. There’s simple things you could do. Folks look at recycling and really focusing at sustainable lifestyles, because when we do that, we have less impact in our most vulnerable communities, where the creation of energy sources are, or where landfills are. So you can do those kinds of individual things. You can also give consideration to economics, and how the utilization of your dollars play a role. There are folks who are working on divestment and reinvestment, so you can look at your overall economic portfolios and decide and make sure that you are investing your dollars in organizations and portfolios that make sense moving forward in a cleaner type of economy. You can also make sure that you’re volunteering with local organizations who are doing their best to be able to make change. So there’s lots of things that individuals can do based upon who you are, where you are, and how much you want to get involved.

E: Okay great. And from your relatively new position with the Hip Hop Caucus, how do you see the Caucus and your own role in advancing environmental justice issues?

Ali: Sure. I’m very blessed to be with the Hip Hop Caucus and I’m very thankful to Reverend Lennox Yearwood for the incredible team that he has put together here at the Caucus. We’re doing a number of things, we’re a part of both the national and international divestment and reinvestment campaign. We’re also launching a program called Revitalizing Vulnerable Communities at the end of the summer, where we’ll be hoping to leverage resources for our most vulnerable communities and help them to build authentic, collaborative partnerships. We also have the Respect My Vote campaign, where we are educating folks about voting, getting engaged, and the democracy and also the civic process, excuse me. And then we also have People’s Climate Music, which is extremely exciting because we have athletes, we have entertainers, and artists who use their platform to share about civil rights and social justice and environmental justice and climate justice issues, through their own voices and experiences, and that literally reaches worldwide. So I’m extremely excited to be a part of the incredible work that’s happening at the Hip Hop Caucus.

E: So People’s Climate Music is not just music.

Ali: No, it’s so much more than that. It’s all the things that come as part of culture. So yes, it is music, but it’s also poets, it’s artists, it’s folks who are involved in the fashion world. There are so many different elements. The beauty of the Hip Hop Caucus is that we link culture with policy, and other types of activities, and we give a voice to younger generations as well. We help people to understand that they have power, and that they can utilize that power to help make positive change.

E: Okay, thank you. Any final comments?

Ali: We should just be focused on moving our most vulnerable communities from surviving to thriving.

]]>https://earthtalk.org/mustafa-ali/feed/017219no Mustafa Ali, a founder of EPA's environmental justice office, discusses moving forward on environmental justice even without the support of President Trump. The post Mustafa Ali on Moving Forward on Environmental Justice Despite Trump appeared first on ERoddy Scheer Mustafa Ali, a founder of EPA's environmental justice office, discusses moving forward on environmental justice even without the support of President Trump. The post Mustafa Ali on Moving Forward on Environmental Justice Despite Trump appeared first on EarthTalk.org. environment,environmental,sustainability,green,living,solar,green,interview,Q,Ahttps://earthtalk.org/mustafa-ali/http://earthtalk.org/wp-content/uploads/earthtalk-podcast-ali.mp3Indigenous Environmental Network’s Kandi Mossett on Fighting Pipelines, Warminghttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PodcastEarthtalkorg/~3/IGgYR5g7klk/
https://earthtalk.org/kandi-mossett-indinenous-environmental-network/#respondSat, 08 Apr 2017 17:55:20 +0000roddy@earthtalk.org (Roddy Scheer)http://earthtalk.org/?p=17017Kandi Mossett of the Indigenous Environmental Network talks about how and why native tribes are fighting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipeline projects...

Kandi Mossett, of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara nations, grew up on the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota. She has long been active in campaigns against fracking, documenting its pernicious health effects, particularly on her reservation. She began working with the Indigenous Environmental Network — the premier Native American organization fighting for clean air and water, against climate change, and in favor of indigenous community rights — as Tribal Campus Climate Challenge Coordinator in 2007, organizing with student activists at more than 30 colleges across the country. Today she leads the organization’s Extreme Energy and Just Transition Campaign, which has been actively involved in efforts to block the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline projects…

EarthTalk: Native American communities have been on the frontlines of recent environmental conflict. For instance, opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL. Um, what do you see as the main reasons for this? Why are indigenous people at the forefront?

Mossett: Well, I mean, you can kinda look at this from a historical context too and see that especially as Native American people we have been at the forefront of the conflict since the beginning of colonization. Um, being here in our home territories and then having people come in and tell us what we can or can not do, uhm, ((laughs)). So you know, this has been a struggle for over five hundred years, if you think about it in a historical context. So I think that when it comes to, uh, these fossil fuel infrastructure industries citing where they put uh, refineries or where they put extractive industry, pipelines, that a lot of times it just so happens to be in our um, communities as well. Which today, in this day and age, we have reservations that the government established, that they put us on. And so, its kinda like, the last battle, the last bit that we have from everything that we lost already and now that’s under attack. And when a tribe, like the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, says that they do not want a pipeline crossing their treaty lines, and that they do not want a pipeline that impacts their drinking water, it’s that same conflict. It’s that same continued, lack of respect for indigenous rights, indigenous treaties, that has been ongoing since the beginning of the United States being formed. So I don’t think that we have a choice really, at being the forefront of these conflicts. These industries, uh, force us into this conflict by continually putting our health at risk and the lives of our children at risk by contaminating water sources. So, I hope that that answers that. I think that we just don’t have a choice.

E: Right, and of course, historically you’ve had less political influence. So, less ability to stop such progress and we even saw that with Dakota Access right? Right with Bismarck wanted though, it was moved.

Mossett: Mhm, yeah, and so with Dakota Access, it’s still in the courts, it’s still ongoing. Um. The oil is not flowing through the pipeline; they might have put oil in there. But there’s a lot going on where they have to answer to their investors because it’s still in the court. And if the court does decide that, treaty rights we’re violated, which they were, um, I’m not sure what the Dakota Access and energy transfer partners and Senoqu energy is going to do. Because they are going to have to look at a possible reroute or look at some other form of um, of infrastructure. The only thing that is helping them greatly right now is that we are in this Trump administration. Um, and Donald Trump is completely for the fossil fuel industry and completely against you know any kind of, he’s a climate change denier. ((laughs))

E: Right.

Mossett: And so that’s what we are dealing with. I think that it had um, had it been anybody else it would have been a different circumstance already.

E: Right, I know it was on hiatus and you brought it back, but um, I’m never quite clear on the status because I know its been completed technically.

Mossett: Right, and they did put oil in it, but the oils not flowing and so they have to answer to their funders and to their shareholders why this isn’t happening yet. And so there is a lot of different behind the scenes things that are happening with this company where their not being completely honest with everybody. So, that’s all we know right now. Is that the oil still isn’t flowing and um, we can’t even answer the question of why, why that is. And it was supposed to have been at least by April 1st, at least is what they told their shareholders. So, I don’t know how they are keeping them in check still, as the days go by, as they continue to lose money.

E: Yeah, it’s uh, a strange situation, and definitely not an April Fools joke though. But…

Mossett: Oh I know! Gosh, it sometimes feels like it because we fought so hard to have clean drinking water. And we felt like the Obama administration was finally listening, that it was a small victory, and so something unprecedented happened when Donald Trump came in, which was to just completely forgo the environmental impact statement process in which there were already thousands and thousands, maybe even hundred of thousands of comments that were submitted. And that’s never happened before, where a new president just came in and said, “Oh, you know, too bad we don’t care about your comments, we are going to do it the way we want to do it. So there is a lot of unprecedented things happening.

E: Yeah,everything seems upside down. But let me ask, however the Dakota Access Pipeline comes out, you definitely had a unique confluence of tribes and also some unexpected allies, like military veterans opposing the pipeline. But now your with an extreme administration, beside climate change, questionable whether it recognizes tribal rights also, so uh, where do you see this alliance going into the future?

Mossett: I feel like underneath the Trump administration we are actually building stronger alliances because people that are like minded are coming together, we might not have the exact same sturggles. And in the past we might have been a bit more segregated as a result of that, but now, because everyone is under attack we are joining forces together, um against the administration that does seem to be making everything upside down. So im sure its totally unintentional ut what the Donald Trump administration is doing, is actually causing non-violent direct action energy revolution! And so, I feel like the alliance is going the be strengthened, even more, as the days go on. Um, indeed as the years go on. And the thing is is that people are finally getting it, um its not just a nimby issue, you know not in my backyard. It’s an issue that impacts us all over. And so even though, traditionally and historically it was low income communities, people of color communities that were the first and worst impacted, and still are, we are not the only ones anymore. ((laughs)) There are people outside of that world that are seeing the impacts because where there is flow and air circulates, and this planet, you know this one planet that we have, I think that people are understanding that it doesn’t matter if extractive processes are happening in North Dakota from fracking and the block information. The energy that is being produced is one thing but the pollution that is being produced is quite another and it doesn’t stay here. Now when you start adding up all of the energy projects around the world when it comes to the fossil fuel industry for example, that’s why we start to see a change in our greenhouse gas emissions, we start to see that there are anthropomorphic impacts, you know human induced impacts that we’re actually changing our systems. And that we are not segregated we are not separate. And so people are waking up! Um, the question that I always have is, are they doing it fast enough? And we don’t have the government behind us right now, or the politicians right now, what we have is an administration that is basically run by the industry. Now, we know that there has always been ties in politics and industry, but it’s never been as blatant as it is now in the Trump administration, who appears to be doing favors for people who got him elected. That includes the Koch brothers, I mean that even includes all the stuff that is happening in Russia, and a lot of the conversations that have been being had or around, his influence in the fossil fuel sector, wanting to open up, um drilling in Alaska or in Anmore, or in the artic, and he may have been working with-with Russian ties, to say yeah you can drill here if you help me get elected. So we got, there is a lot of crooked corruption going on as well. But this is calling it out.

E: Right, and it’s pretty unique I think, the amount of kleptocracy and the plutocracy in this government. And of course, I have to ask about the Keystone pipeline, which we know in Canada the indigenous people were on the forefront on opposing and to an extent the US also, so where do you see that going forward, with stopping the tar sand oils? Like, what are the main battlefronts there right now?

Mossett: Well the one thing that has been made clear with the Keystone XL pipeline is that this administration has no idea what it’s doing. Donald Trump didn’t even realize that there was no permit for Nebraska which is a key state that they’d have to go through to make the Keystone XL pipeline project happen. And so just the fact that he didn’t even know that was kind of like what are you doing. You should know these things if you’re trying to push this project forward. And so the battleground right now is definitely Nebraska making sure that it stops again with Nebraska. And there are a lot of really strong landowners and people that came together the first time to stop it which is why we were so successful. And in fact the reason why that Dakoda access pipeline was so rushed and just ramrodded through was because of Keystone XL. They didn’t want us to be successful. They didn’t want us to stop the project so they just sort of cut a bunch of corners on Dakota Access and rushed it which is really scary considering that it’s built now. The other thing is that the Trump administration said that the Dakota access pipeline the Keystone XL pipeline would have to use American still. Now he’s gone back on that saying “oh I guess they don’t have to” ((laughs)) just you know to make these projects happen. The other thing to consider is that there’s probably about 10 pipeline projects, major pipeline projects right now that the U.S. is considering. And what this administration is doing is actually putting all of these pipelines against each other, because we don’t need all of them. And so it’s kind of like they’re going to have to fight for who’s going to win and which pipeline. And that’s just not good economics or policy either it just doesn’t make any sense for us to be in the United States to be doing something like that if we don’t need the pipeline infrastructure. Why are we approving it. Why are we approving the Keystone XL. And I think probably most importantly is where…where the feedback is coming from for Keystone Excel which is the tar sands in Canada. And so connecting you know an indigenous community in Canada all the way through the U.S. they’re being impacted negatively by the tar sands. The thing is is that people are pulling out of tar sands projects you know Shell. There’s different other major players that are seeing the cost benefit analysis and it’s no longer feasible to be digging in the tar sands and they’re starting to see that. So having the Keystone XL come out of there it just doesn’t make any sense.

E: Right, the tar sands are probably the worst, the heaviest environmental impact of any kind of oil. And then you have really, well you could call it a unique alliance of say landowners and tribes, becoming less unique.

Mossett: It is, it is, it used to be it was the cowboy and Indian alliance. When we first were fighting the Keystone XL. And so we said we still have it. We don’t necessarily call it that anymore because we don’t want it to be reminiscent of the wild west. We have to bring it in modern day when it’s not just Native people that are facing eminent domain now it’s ranchers and non-native owners and they’re shocked and they’re outraged. And so it just is sometimes it just takes people to have to go through it to really understand. Which is unfortunate but that’s the way it’s playing now.

E: And of course the other key part of the alliance environmental group such as Earth justice your club or 350.org. But historically there has been some tension in the environmental groups, were seen as elite and out of touch. But seem to be working better these days So can you comment on the reasons for this alliance, the strength of the alliance.

Mossett: Sure. I mean the Indigenous Environmental Network has been around since 1990 as an official organization. Prior to that you know we were a part of the American Indian Movement and we have been sort of loosely forums for so many decades. But I think that the discourse happened because we coined the term environmental justice. We talked about how we were impacted in our communities and what happened was a lot of these bigger organizations in the front end. And I don’t think intentionally but they were like “How can we help you. We’re going to tell your story and we’re going to lift up your story” Now as a result of doing that a lot of these organizations actually got different resources or different funding or different people joining their organizations as a result of using our stories. So it’s kind of had to been a really long process of learning together to see how you actually work together in a good way and what it means to be a good ally. And I think these organizations now are getting it. So I mean it’s unfortunate that it took us so long to have to like explain to them why it’s not appropriate to parachute into a community and do an event and then leave and not have anything set up for that community. Our basis again has always been relationship building like we know all the people on our list serves like on a personal basis we go into the communities and it’s not something that you can do in the course of a few weeks. This is years and years and years of base building and community outreach and really understanding the struggles that people are facing in their communities and how it impacts their families. So I think that we were able to learn from each other, as organizations, so they learn from us how to build community. And we’re learning from them how to I guess sort of expand that and to work with each other because we have different niches of people that see the work we do. So we combine our forces with that much more powerful because at the end of the day we are all like minded in what we’re fighting for. Which is a clean energy future for for everyone. And so I think that there’s a common understanding there that we really need each other and that yeah there might be a little bit of hiccups along the way with the way we do the work but we have to work together because we do have a common goal and you know that is tackling the climate crisis. It’s not it’s not a race based thing it’s not a religion thing, it’s not an age thing. It’s a humanity thing.

E: Okay great, from being kind of paternalistic on the part of the environmental organizations to a true alliance…

Mossett: It’s getting there. ((laughs))

E: Getting there, not 100 percent.

Mossett: We’ve got some kinks to work out. But you know at least it’s a step in that right direction.

E: Great, since you bring up environmental justice I do want to bring up the African-American influence on environmental justice from the beginning starting in the 1980s. And of course keeping stuff like incinerator out of African-American or minority communities. Are you working together much with that group of allies?

Mossett: Oh yes. I mean completely this is not something where we’re trying to be separatists or when we say the term we use is POC which is people of color. And so we’ve been working as people of color for a really long time. You know the whole Black Lives Matter movement is something that totally resonated with our Idle No More movement and we started to see the similarities and how we’re dealing with you know an industry or a corporation or even politics that seeks to continue to keep us separate and when we see that we’re dealing with a lot of the same struggles and most recently a lot of our groups have united and are. Yesterday April 4th which is the anniversary of when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his beyond Vietnam speech. He talked about denouncing poverty racism military-ism and then one year later he was assassinated. And so what we did was launch something called the majority and this group called the majority has indigenous groups, Black Lives Matter groups urban and rural groups, climate justice alliances. Were all coming together because we understand the necessity to build each other up. So there was a series of actions that were done yesterday in in a political education actions I would say to bring this to light that this has a historical context it’s been happening for so long that we cannot forget what happened even 50 years ago. And so then on May 1st we’re also coming together with demonstrations. You know at mayday which has to do with worker’s rights and how people have been treated pretty poorly in the international field. This may 1st is international worker’s day it’s also known as may day. And that is because historically there was a fight for an eight-hour work day that goes all the way back to 1886 in Chicago where were striking workers had a had a run in with the police. And there were several deaths. And so this whole this group of ours the majority is calling to light the historical context and to the light the fact that these things were never remediated fully you know and that we still have a way to go in the struggle and to not forget our history. For native people as indigenous people, it’s something that we’ve always talked about. We’ve always said you have to not only look seven generations ahead but seven generations back. We cannot possibly understand where we’re going in the future if we don’t remember who we are and where we came from. And we feel like that’s happening. There’s a big uprising in the Black Lives Matter movement too, where we want to join forces and we’re also joining forces with the Vietnam vets also with the queer community because of the impact that they’ve been facing. And so that’s what the majority is made up of is Black Lives Matter, indigenous Lives Matter queer community as the Vietnam vet community is. And I think that it’s going to be really successful. And so far already has been it’s a fairly new alliance but I think we have a long ways to go. I think that the way we’re going is the right way I should say.

E: And the definition of sustainability is often not just environmental, it also includes social justice and uh, economic equity. So, that’s all together.

Mossett: Right.

E: So we also saw an indigenous presence of the women march on Washington and soon we’ll be having the people’s climate march, I will be covering. But, um, this seems all part of the same movement. So can you talk a little bit about the the role of the indigenous presence at these events?

Mossett: Sure it isn’t it hasn’t been easy. It’s not like being at these events was just handed to us as indigenous peoples, we actually had to go and make our presence known. It started you know it’s been a lot of the marches, but we had the people’s Climate March in 2014 in New York City and that was on the eve of the United Nations Climate Change Summit that they were having in New York which is why we did the people’s Climate March but we had to have a voice at the table we had to interject that there is a reason that we should be on the front lines. As Native American people we’re here. We were the first ones here. We were heavily impacted. We’re continuing to be heavily impacted and we’re still here. So we have to say that we deserve a place at the table we deserve visibility for our movements and the same was true of the women’s march we had to really get, kind of scramble to get on the steering committees you know and make our voices heard and and ask for a space in the front. And so what we ended up doing was creating our own collaboration called indigenous women rise and that was created specifically out of the women’s march so that we would have a space there. And it just has continued since then. And so it’s been a really successful thing for us to bring indigenous women from around the country indeed around the world together to continue this indigenous woman rise effort. And so with the people’s climate march that’s coming up here at the end of April we have a bit more, I guess history and how we shift-how we organize because of the 2014 March. And we have said “OK we really feel like in impacting communities especially in Indigenous communities need to be at the forefront of the battle because we we have been we’ve been at the forefront of the battle for over 500 years.” It goes back to that historical context. And so I think that that’s the role that we play is to show our visibility and to show that we’ve been fighting for a really long time but we’re still here and we’re still continuing to fight. We don’t give up. We need to make sure that…the planet and the systems that we work within are protected from ourselves and by that I mean humanity.

E: Right. And speaking of Native American historical situation, um it is at least in shorthand that’s often associated with like ties to a specific piece of land on local issues local identity local rights and sovereignty. But climate change is global. It doesn’t know any boundaries. And these alliances seem pretty novel, I mean in the 1960s and 70s Native Americans used that as a launching pad for a movement but it doesn’t seemed to be the same kind of collaboration that there is today. So, you think this might affect Native American identity and where do you see the alliance heading?

Mossett: Well I mean it’s true. A lot of our work is tied to land and local issues because that’s where our stories come from. We tell our traditions stories, or oral stories based upon where we live. For millennia where we grew up we can look out at the hills and that’s how a song is determined is based on the hills and the valleys the ups and downs. Our stories come from where we are, we have a huge tie to the land which is why it’s so painful for us when the land is extracted from. It’s almost like we can physically feel that pain in our own bodies which is something that is called Blood memory. The thing is is that blood memory doesn’t just exist in Native American identity it’s not unique to us. Everyone has it’s just a matter of whether they recognize it or remember it based upon their own history of where people are from. And so Native American identity is already being impacted by a number of things not to mention this melting pot that we call the United States where it’s not even necessarily about one race anymore because everybody, you know is so many different things now now we’re all mixed together. And so I don’t feel like it’s going to impact us negatively. I also feel like you know we also have always never recognized boundaries you know between even Canada and Mexico in North America here, we don’t recognize those boundaries there invisible boundaries that man has placed because we’ve always said there’s no such thing as land ownership. You know how can you how can you live on the land that belongs to all of us. And if anything I think that it’s strengthening our identity. I just hope that it’s not doing it in a romanticized way for people around the world because it’s not a romantic thing to be a Native American it’s it’s been a really hard thing to grow up for me in a reservation community in North Dakota. And I don’t think people understand the reality of what it means to be a Native American in the real life context outside the romanticized version. It’s hard and we’re targeted and we’re impacted negatively by the fossil fuel industry and by our peers around us. This country tried to do a whole termination of us and then after they didn’t succeed they tried to do is to assimilation and acculturation. We’ve been beat up pretty bad by having our culture stripped to having our integrity stripped. Yet we remain we still have our stories we still have our culture we still have our language. We were hanging on by a thread for a while there but now we’re making a comeback. On a global level what we’re seeing as people relating to us and we’re seeing people supporting us and saying you know what I’m indigenous to Africa, I’m indigenous to Sweden, you know or or Finland. And we have people saying and this is what we know from our own communities. How can we join together in the struggle to make it stronger. And so I think that we’re seeing unity. Probably a lot of that has to do with technology. So it’s kind of a catch 22 because technology can also be our downfall when it comes to climate change. So I think that our alliance is heading in the right direction when it comes to the power of visiting and the power of connecting. We just have to be really careful and really mindful of how we move and where we move. So what we try to do it IEN, the Indigenous Environmental Network and what we’re working on now is not just the projects that we’re trying to stop, but what we’re trying to build and we’re trying to build a transition away from the fossil fuel economy in our communities which takes time. And what that looks like is getting back to the small scale thinking and doing of of our everyday lifestyle. Small scale distributed wind and solar on each home, you know instead of a huge solar plant or huge wind farm because when you start getting corporate It inevitably becomes negative. It’s it’s been a side effect of large corporate thinking. We need to get back to small scale community style living which can happen even in urban settings that simply can happen by community gardens. In each block. So the block can come together as a community with their garden and talk to each other and learn about where their food sources are coming from. It can happen and I think that’s where we’re going now. It’s just that in the human ego we think of our own lifespan as this great thing. You know if we live to be 100 years old well then that’s a really long time. But in reality that’s nothing compared to Earth time. You know the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Our lifespan is the blink of an eye. So we have to really focus on then on the positive impacts that we can have in our short lifespan that’s going to lead to the next generation so that we’re changing the way we’re doing things. And now we have the scientific facts behind us. So it’s really important to combine tradition with fact with heart. Yeah and I think that I mean I don’t hope I didn’t go too far on that last half. You know that love of the land that everybody has and just how people to remember basically where they come from.

]]>https://earthtalk.org/kandi-mossett-indinenous-environmental-network/feed/017017no Kandi Mossett of the Indigenous Environmental Network talks about how and why native tribes are fighting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipeline projects... The post Indigenous Environmental Network&#8217;s Kandi Mossett on Fighting Pipelines, WarmingRoddy Scheer Kandi Mossett of the Indigenous Environmental Network talks about how and why native tribes are fighting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipeline projects... The post Indigenous Environmental Network&#8217;s Kandi Mossett on Fighting Pipelines, Warming appeared first on EarthTalk.org. environment,environmental,sustainability,green,living,solar,green,interview,Q,Ahttps://earthtalk.org/kandi-mossett-indinenous-environmental-network/http://earthtalk.org/wp-content/uploads/earthtalk-podcast-mossett.mp3Benjamin Schreiber of Friends of the Earth Talks Strategy Against Trumphttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PodcastEarthtalkorg/~3/B0HD5SsgIHI/
https://earthtalk.org/benjamin-schreiber-friends-earth-talks-strategy-trump/#respondFri, 03 Mar 2017 06:17:51 +0000roddy@earthtalk.org (Roddy Scheer)http://earthtalk.org/?p=16864What worries Ben Schreiber of Friends of the Earth most right now is Trump's roll-back of the environmental protections set in motion by Barack Obama...

Benjamin Schreiber has been working for a decade to promote renewable energy and fight climate change, first for Environment America and more recently for Friends of the Earth, where he serves as Senior Political Strategist. While Friends of the Earth is active in 75 countries around the world, Ben. EarthTalk’s Ethan Goffman interviewed Schreiber in person at Friends of the Earth’s office in downtown Washington, DC…

EarthTalk: Donald Trump has called climate change “a Chinese hoax.” His EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, previously sued the EPA 14 times, including 4 times to block the Clean Power Plan to stop climate change. Given this, what do you see as likely Trump actions with regards to the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Climate Agreement?

Schreiber: That’s a great question. I think first of all let’s start with the Paris Agreement. Donald Trump has made it very clear that he doesn’t support the Paris Agreement. The question just becomes whether or not he’s going to try to undermine it by withdrawing the United States or whether or not he’s going to undermine it from within. The signal that we’re getting right now is that he’s not going to immediately withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. The United States is going to send a delegation to the Bonn Intersessional—that’s coming up in a couple of months, so they’re going to participate in the process. At the same time, it’s really clear that Donald Trump is not committed to climate change; he’s continued to question the validity of climate science. So we are talking about a situation where we have a bad actor in this international agreement. With the Clean Power Plan, Donald Trump has appointed Scott Pruitt as the head of EPA. One of the things that’s really interesting is that in his confirmation, Scott Pruitt was very clear that the Environmental Protection Agency has the obligation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act because the Supreme Court decided a case—Massachusetts v. EPA—which said that greenhouse gas emissions were a pollutant and that they had to be regulated, and there was an endangerment finding. Since he’s has his nomination confirmed, Scott Pruitt’s actually really gone back on that, and he’s started to say that maybe the EPA doesn’t actually have the regulatory tools, that it is actually not something that they have the legal authority to do, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. So we’re seeing, you know, the climate denier Scott Pruitt, who is really a tool of the oil and gas industry, walking back the regulations on greenhouse gas emissions by EPA.

E: So, they could just kind of not enforce it very much, but it looks like they might more directly attack it at this point?

Schreiber: It looks like they’re actually talking about potentially just undoing the endangerment finding, taking all the structure that’s been built up for almost a decade to regular greenhouse gas emissions and saying actually the Clean Air Act doesn’t apply to carbon. That we don’t have the tools in law right now to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. And if they can’t do that, if they’re not successful, what they look like they’ll do is going to starve EPA with massive budget cuts. You know, they’re already talking about 25% of the EPA budget being whack so that we can increase defense spending.

E: Right, because the Supreme Court has said clearly that the EPA does have to have some kind of action against climate change.

Schreiber: The Supreme Court has said that, but we’re also seeing that Donald Trump doesn’t have a lot of respect for the rule of law in the courts. That ruling was very clear, but at the same time, there’s an executive order that’s going to be handed down today on the Water Rule, where the EPA and Trump administration is pointing to a dissent by Justice Scalia to rewrite the Water Rule and saying we should be using the standards of the dissent (i.e. the opinion that was not carried, and which was not the majority opinion, and not the rule of law by the Supreme Court). So Donald Trump is really disregarding judges and justices that he doesn’t like or doesn’t agree with.

E: Which is of questionable legality, to say the least.

Schreiber: Yeah, I think Donald Trump is really threatening the structures of our democracy. You know, it started with some of the rules and norms, like releasing your tax returns and showing that you don’t have conflicts of interest—the Emoluments Clause. It’s clear that he has conflicts of interest and is getting money from foreign corporations and foreign governments through his hotels and other business deals, that he’s continuing to do arrangements and deals overseas in places like Indonesia, that he hasn’t actually given up or put his companies in any kind of meaningful “blind trust.” And he has all kinds of conflicts of interests. He’s just basically ignored the decades of norms and rules and saying, “You know what? I won the election. Too bad.”

E: So if the executive is actually just steamrolling over rules illegally, basically, but his party is in power, what are the best strategies against that kind of action?

Schreiber: Yeah. This is, I think, one of the things that’s really interesting about the situation we’re in right now, is that we haven’t really had someone challenge the legal structures in the way Donald Trump is right now, really undermining the judiciary. He refused to follow through with the judiciary’s instructions to halt the Muslim ban at first, when he put it in place. What we see is that the Republican Congress has been enabling him by steamrolling through his appointments, just basically rubber-stamping what he wants to do. What we need is more protests. More people out. More people like Darrell Issa, who are afraid that they’re going to be held accountable. Because basically, the people who are enabling Donald Trump have to be held accountable at the polls when we have elections in two years. That’s really the only thing that we’re going to do to be able to stop Donald Trump from really running Russia over our democracy.

E: So basically you need a mass movement putting pressure on our legislators.

Schreiber: Yeah, our legislators. We can’t only focus on Donald Trump. We have to recognize that there’s a whole host of members of Congress who are refusing to investigate him, who are hiding behind partisanship, who are so excited by the opportunity to really destroy our government and cut funding that they’re looking past all these conflicts of interests: the ties to Russia, the shady deals, handing over the Department of Education to an unqualified woman who has never had a real job in her life. They’re willing to ignore all of this in their zealous zest to remake government.

E: What about Friends of the Earth? What specific actions has your organization taken?

Schreiber: There are a couple of things. The first is, we’re using the courts. And so there are decisions that Donald Trump has made or is making that we are challenging. And the courts, so far, have been a break on some of the things that Donald Trump is doing, such as the Muslim ban, which is a perfect example. So, yes, we’re going to the courts and we’re using that as a resource. The second thing is, we are making sure the Democratic Party actually resists Trump and his extreme agenda. When we first—right after this election, there was a lot of talk on the part of Democrats that they can do the work with Trump. And then the nominees came, and the nominees were one of the most extreme set of nominees we’ve ever seen. The Women’s March came. More than a million people came out on the streets—almost a million people here in Washington, D.C., millions of people across the country. And so, we’re making sure that the Democratic caucus stands strong, especially in the Senate, where most of the really bad legislation has a 60-vote threshold and the Democrats can stop it. And then we’re getting our members and our activists to turn to town hall meetings to be heard. We’re seeing powerful responses at the town hall meetings.

E: And specifically about the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreement—do you have specific actions you’re taking on those?

Schreiber: The Paris Agreement right now… we are definitely focusing in on members of Congress and the administration, and that’s a really—an ask of going to the town hall meetings and making sure you’re being heard. The Clean Power Plan, we’re actually expecting a Clean Power Plan rollback any day now. That’s going to be an accountability ask, making sure that when that happens—again, people are going out to the town hall meetings. We’re seeing these confrontational town hall meetings that the Republican members of Congress are having all over the country.

E: On a related issue, the Trump administration has moved forward on the Dakota Access Pipeline despite the massive Native American protests. And also on the Keystone XL, which moves the dirtiest of oil—tar sands oil—to ports where it can be shipped out. It reverses two major Obama administration decisions. Given this, how can the “Keep It in the Ground” strategy move forward?

Schreiber: The “Keep It in the Ground” strategy obviously is a really important campaign that we’ve been running. I think there are two things. First of all, there’s an important legal strategy to try and challenge both Dakota Access and the Keystone XL Pipeline. So we’re going to the courts to try and slow down or stop those decisions from moving forward. We are also continuing with protests, making sure legislators are held accountable. And finally, these projects are not that economically viable right now. The price of oil is still really low. So we’ve been targeting the banks that are financing these projects to try and undercut the financing and really stop them from being built. We’re seeing cities like Dallas and Seattle withdraw their pension funds and funding for them, as well as some of the banks that we’ve been targeting actually withdrawing from financing these projects. And I think we do have a really good opportunity to stop some of these projects from actually getting the billions of dollars of finance that they need.

E: And I guess the economics have been shifting toward renewable and against fossil fuels for at least the past five years.

Schreiber: Yes. I mean, what you’re seeing right now is that renewable energy is incredibly cheap, and that actually fossil fuels are so concerned about the price of renewable energy that they’re going into states like Nevada and they’re actually trying to make it impossible for homeowners to put solar on their rooftops by putting all of these additional surcharges and fees on, because they don’t want the competition—the utilities don’t want the competition because they know they can’t compete. At the same time, you know, Canadian tar sands—which is what most of these pipelines are shipping—is incredibly expensive, and relative to the cheap price of oil that we have right now. Shipping and mining tar sands oil doesn’t make a lot of economic sense. And so the financing on these projects is really fragile, and pulling out a couple of big banks can really make the difference between whether or not a project gets built or not.

E: So the Trump economic plan really does not make that much sense right now, even when you don’t put the environmental impact into account.

Schreiber: The Trump economic plan has never made a lot of sense, but it makes good talking points, and unfortunately, we’re stuck with good talking points right now. That has carried the day about, we’re going to bring back coal jobs and we’re going to put miners to work. When the reality is that it was changing markets and dropping prices of renewable energy that has cut the bottom out of the coal market, and also declining coal reserves.

E: And then, there is actually a group of Republicans that does believe in climate change, that has an alternative plan, and they’ve recently released this. Led by James Baker, Henry Paulson, and George Shultz. They suggest a carbon tax and dividends scheme as an alternative to the Clean Power Plan. I know this is something that usually has pretty wide support across the political spectrum, so what’s your position on this?

Schreiber: The Friends of the Earth has long been in support of a carbon tax. We do think that a carbon tax is one of the most important tools that our government could put towards regulating greenhouse gas emissions and reducing our carbon emissions. We don’t think a carbon tax is a silver bullet—it can’t be a replacement for regulation, for EPA authority—but it’s an important complement to regulating greenhouse gases and getting the reductions that we need. At the same time, we’re not really putting up a lot of energy into promoting a carbon tax right now. We’re seeing with the Trump administration to basically gut the social cost of carbon and take the impacts of climate change and carbon out of government decisions. We’re seeing a government that is filled with climate deniers who just are fighting the science and reject it. So we’re much more focused on stopping the administration from rolling back what’s already in place because we don’t see a lot of opportunity for good legislation right now.

E: Right. So at the moment, it would be worth supporting, but it has so little chance you have to put your eggs in another basket right now.

Schreiber: That’s right. And also, I don’t we would necessarily want to roll back the Clean Power Plan to put in place a carbon tax. A carbon tax, again, isn’t a silver bullet; we also need to complement it with legislation, with regulation so that we’re assured we’re getting the reductions we need, that we actually have—that we don’t have hotspots, that we’re fighting the co-pollutants, that we’re actually regulating all of the emissions from smokestacks.

E: Well, we definitely want clean air and we don’t want as much… Which is a related but different issue. Right?

Schreiber: Well, they’re incredibly related in the sense that they come out of the tail pipes and the smokestacks at the same time. One of the critiques of both the Clean Power Plan and also the Waxman-Markey Bill was that these trading schemes actually allowed for hotspots by creating incentives to have emissions sort of bunched together in the cheapest, most efficient places, without looking for the other co-pollutant impacts and what it was doing to the communities that were living near those facilities.

E: The Markey-Waxman Bill was about 7 or 8 years ago, right? And that was just another way to put a price on carbon.

Schreiber: Yes, exactly. That was the bill that was really sort of champion ed for the first two years under President Obama’s first term.

E: Okay. So let me talk to you about Native Americans and environmental justice advocates such as African communities. They’ve lately been at the forefront of a lot of environmental action; of course, Standing Rock would be the most famous. And they are often victims to environmental pollution more so than other communities, but they have historically seen themselves as ignored by mainstream environmental groups. How does Friends of the Earth see these groups as healing old differences and working together in the future?

Schreiber: Yeah, so I think the first thing to note is that their feeling of being ignored by the biggest environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth, is quite valid. For too long, our movement has been a largely white, upper-middle class movement that’s been concerned about protecting parks, protecting lands…fighting climate change without real concern for the people who are living near the plants and who are on the front lines of the extractive fights. And solutions like carbon capture sequestration, where you’re still mining coal, you’re still burning coal, but you’re just burying it under the ground and in fact you might need more coal—are examples of solutions that might be solutions for the climate problem in theory, but are actually worse than all of the co-pollutants and the other impacts. I think the first step is just recognizing that yes, this has been a problem: listening to the concerns that frontline communities and environmental justice communities and environmental justice organizations have internalizing them, changing the way that we interact with those groups to be much more responsive and respectful. And then also making sure that we’re not co-opting some of their fights. And so, I think Dakota Access is a perfect example. Dakota Access was a super important fight for indigenous groups, for Native Americans. It was a fight that was about protecting water and it was a little about the environment, too, but it was about indigenous sovereignty and centuries of abuse of indigenous peoples by the United States government. Rather than turning that fight into a purely climate fight, Friends of the Earth made it very clear that we were supporting those groups because we support their sovereignty, and because we recognize how important it is for them to have a say and consultation in the decisions that are made about them and about their lives. And so I think it’s really just changing how we think about things. And I think the “Keep It in the Ground” really did a good job of this as well. The “Keep It in the Ground” movement was very much local-led. People living near extractive facilities and near mines coming out and making it clear that they didn’t want fossil fuels coming out of the ground; they didn’t want to live with the impacts and the consequences.

E: Okay, so the local groups will start it and guide it—maybe about nearby coal mines, for instance—and then the environmental groups will support, for instance, with legislative expertise.

Schreiber: For sure. And it’s also about supplying those groups with resources is well. Making sure that not all of the funding goes to green environmental organizations so that community-led groups are actually being resourced and listened to. So it’s the way that we interact and then supporting them.

E: And of course, you’re a global organization with chapters around the world. So, that probably influenced the way you were able to interact with Native Americans, for instance, because you’re used to working with different groups, right? But, how do you see your global stances affecting your attitude toward the Trump administration? And might the excesses of Trump help galvanize environmental organizing around the world?

Schreiber: Yeah. So I think there are two really important parts to that. The first is that Donald Trump needs to be seen in a global context. He’s part of a phenomenon that started, in some ways, with Brexit—the rise of fascism in Europe, the move to really tug at and potentially undo the European Union. So that’s one piece. The second piece is, I think, the increasing power of fossil fuel industries all over the globe, especially in Latin America. I think in some way Donald Trump is reflective of both of those growing phenomena. And I think—I hope—that Donald Trump can serve as a cautionary tale for Europe as they fight fascism, as you see. The rise of nationalist parties in Poland and France—that people can see what it really looks like here in the United States and choose for themselves, that they don’t want to go down that pathway and they don’t want to see the impact. I think, also, it’s a cautionary tale for the rest of the world in terms of the power of the fossil fuel industry and what happens when you hand over control of the fossil fuel industry. Donald Trump has basically given our foreign policy to the former CEO of ExxonMobil. He’s put Scott Pruitt, who more or less is an employee of Devon Energy and other Oklahoma energy companies, in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency. And we’re seeing the impacts. The impacts are dirtier air, dirtier water, less regulation. So I’m hoping that the energy and the revulsion that people feel about what’s happening here in the United States galvanizes movements in countries across the globe to take on the pressing issues that they have there. So that’s first.

I think secondly, though, the global network is an important tool to keeping Donald Trump in check as well. Donald Trump right now is an international pariah on climate change, and he’s turning the United States into an international pariah on climate change. He’s the only one world leader that denies climate change right now, and that’s saying a lot. Our international allies can put incredible pressure on the United States, and they can do it in two ways. The first is by putting pressure on world leaders to use diplomatic and economic tools, to try and pressure the United States into action. The second is by putting pressure on corporations and other entities that do business with Trump and his friends to actually pull back. We’re seeing opportunities to use the network to put pressure on the United States to be better actors.

E: Okay, great. Can I go back a little, because I wasn’t aware that the fossil fuel industry was actually becoming more influential in Latin America? Can you tell me a little bit more about in what countries and how that’s manifesting itself?

Schreiber: I think it’s not just the fossil fuel industry. It’s really the corporate power, to some degree, and it’s a couple of ways. But you’re seeing, for instance, big mega projects in places like Brazil. You’re seeing in Honduras everything that happened with Berta and her murder. You’re having those governments being more responsive to corporate interests. It’s also sort of the rise of Chinese capital as well, as indigenous peoples are being moved off of their lands. You’ve seen fights in Ecuador, for instance, with the Sarayaku, who—their traditional lands, there’s a desire in Ecuador to open those up for oil and gas explorations, so indigenous peoples are actually being forced off of their lands so those lands can be opened up. This, in some way, is the rise of not only the fossil fuel industry, but big corporations who have large global reach.

E: So even countries that might have signed on to the Paris Climate Agreement are still developing fossil fuels as kind of the quick way to get jobs, etc.?

Schreiber: Yeah. One of the interesting things about the Paris Agreement is it’s really about demand. It’s really about how much you use, but it doesn’t really do much about supply. So we’re seeing this race from countries all over the globe to extract their fossil fuel resources. And I think this is really about stranded carbon, in some ways. Something like 80% of the world’s carbon, 80% of the world’s fossil fuels, have to stay in the ground. And so the world is racing to fill that 20% and to see who’s going to profit, who’s going to be able to extract. These are also, I think—if you look at the Russia interaction and the Russia sanctions and what’s happening with Trump and Russia, right? That’s really probably about Exxon drilling in the Arctic in Russia. The contacts that the Trump administration has been having—or had, during the campaign—and the sanctions… what those sanctions really did was it stopped Exxon from drilling in the Arctic, and it stopped Russia from getting the revenue from Arctic drilling as well. The influence of fossil fuel companies as intermediaries, or almost quasi-governments, is massive.

E: So it extends to Trump and Russia and relations between the two countries now.

Schreiber: No question. That’s one of the things that was so troubling about Rex Tillerson as CEO of Exxon. Rex Tillerson and Exxon were doing deals with Iran when we had sanctions with Iran, they were doing deals with Russia when we had sanctions with Russia. In some ways, oil companies have become quasi-states, and that sort of was the argument for why Rex Tillerson made sense as a Secretary of State. It’s because he had incredible access and experience with foreign leaders. ExxonMobil basically has its own security forces; they have their own investments; they have their own infrastructure and analysis and the analysts. It’s a quasi-government, and we’re seeing just the incredible power that these massive corporations have over global policy.

E: Okay. And turning to Europe and the rise of a new nationalist riot, for instance with Marine Le Pen. Are these just white nationalists, or do they also have connections to the fossil fuel industry and to climate denial?

Schreiber: I think it depends upon what we’re talking about. I think there’s definitely a white nationalist—anti-immigration bent, right? That was a huge theme in Brexit.

E: And in Trump.

Schreiber: And in Trump. So you’re seeing this shared scapegoating of immigrants. I think you’re also, though, seeing a shared scapegoating of environmental laws. One of the things that was also criticized was the over-regulatory state of the European Union in Brexit, and one of the first things that’s likely to go when Britain does leave the European Union is the environmental regulations that were put in place because of the EU. And so, it’s an attack not only on immigrants and not only fascism, but it’s also an attack on environmentalism that we’re seeing as well. I think they’re intertwined, even if sometimes it’s not as outfront and transparent as, say, the immigration rhetoric is.

E: This is all even gloomier than I had thought. I had thought it was extremely gloomy. Do you have any last, hopeful word to leave our listeners with?

Schreiber: Yeah. I will say that the silver lining of this movement is that the rise of the progressive left has been really powerful. The millions of people that have come out to the streets. The people that have been active that had never been active before, that are taking actions that they would never have taken before because they recognize that this moment is a moment of crisis. I think it’s also important to always remembers that Donald Trump did not win the popular vote. Americans don’t support his extreme agenda. There is going to be incredible resistance, and that resistance is going to continue. We are not alone; no one is alone in this struggle. And I think there’s a real good chance that the rise and strengthening of that resistance will not only topple Donald Trump and carry the day, but will actually take us beyond neoliberalism into a new politics that really is about providing for working Americans and workers and protecting the environment—a new way of interacting with the world. It’s not that Barack Obama was actually necessarily the progressive champion that we needed. I think we can do much better than President Obama. There’s hope that actually this new activism will get us somewhere that we had never imagined possible before.

]]>https://earthtalk.org/benjamin-schreiber-friends-earth-talks-strategy-trump/feed/016864no What worries Ben Schreiber of Friends of the Earth most right now is Trump's roll-back of the environmental protections set in motion by Barack Obama... The post Benjamin Schreiber of Friends of the Earth Talks Strategy Against Trump appeared first on EaRoddy Scheer What worries Ben Schreiber of Friends of the Earth most right now is Trump's roll-back of the environmental protections set in motion by Barack Obama... The post Benjamin Schreiber of Friends of the Earth Talks Strategy Against Trump appeared first on EarthTalk.org. environment,environmental,sustainability,green,living,solar,green,interview,Q,Ahttps://earthtalk.org/benjamin-schreiber-friends-earth-talks-strategy-trump/http://earthtalk.org/wp-content/uploads/earthtalk-podcast-schreiber.mp3Dominique Browning on Ditching Scott Pruitt, Holding Trump Accountablehttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PodcastEarthtalkorg/~3/U2oYa7Mxi78/
https://earthtalk.org/dominique-browning/#respondTue, 07 Feb 2017 21:36:36 +0000roddy@earthtalk.org (Roddy Scheer)http://earthtalk.org/?p=16745Dominique Browning of Moms Clean Air Force discusses ditching Scott Pruitt as EPA Head and holding President Trump accountable on clean air, climate and other environmental issues...

Journalist Dominique Browning launched the activist-oriented Moms Clean Air Force in 2011 in partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund to raise awareness and pressure policymakers about doing the right thing regarding the regulation and monitoring of air quality across the country. She’s written extensively for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and Travel & Leisure, among other publications, and served as Editor-in-Chief of House & Garden for a dozen years through its closure in 2007. EarthTalk’s Ethan Goffman caught up with her recently via telephone from her home on the Rhode Island coast.

EarthTalk: Why and when did Moms Clean Air Force get started, and what prompted you to organize?

Dominique Browning: We got started about six years ago. I was prompted to organize when I started understanding the connections between things like air pollution and water and our food. For example, mercury, which is a really potent neurotoxin, is in a lot of large fish, and I was told when I was pregnant not to eat fish with mercury in it, and I never thought about it again. But when I started reading about air issues, I learned that mercury in our food comes from the emissions of coal-fired power plants. So there’s a direct air pollution link to our health and the health of our babies. So, as I started exploring this further, I started thinking, “Well, moms need to know about these things so that we can tell our political leaders, ‘Take care of them. Clean them up.’”

E: Okay, so it was a personal concern, but would you say you were pretty much the founder? Or was it a group of people? Or, how did it morph into…

Browning: So, I’m the founder and I found kindred spirits—Environmental Defense Fund. We all put our heads together, figured out how to get this off the ground. That was about five years ago that we started, and we began working with the EPA to urge them to pass mercury regulations and to start thinking about how they would deal with climate change. And we are now up to a million members across the country.

E: Wow, that’s an impressive number.

Browning: It’s exciting. I think people want to know what they can do.

E: I guess you do a lot of grassroots organizing. Petitions, letters, that sort of thing. Phone calls.

Browning: We do. We work on two levels. One, we’ve got a great website full of resources and information, and we’re very, very careful to make sure everything is scientifically and medically vetted, reliable, and 100% correct. So, we get petitions going from our website; we have writers and bloggers talking about our issues. We also have fueled activists around the country who are meeting with their state senators and their governors, who are organizing mothers—and some others, and grandmothers—to go and meet with their elected officials and talk about what we want to see done with air and climate problems.

E: Okay, and let’s get right into the Trump part, and then maybe come back to your organization a little bit. Because it’s clear the Trump administration is pretty unique in its attack on air and water quality and climate change. So what do you see are the most important threats right now, and how might they emerge?

Browning: Well, you put it really well. It is a unique administration in all of its indications of hostility to clean air and climate regulations. Right off the bat, we are very worried about the nomination of Scott Pruitt to run the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency. That is an agency that was founded by a Republican president, President Nixon, and was strengthened by the first President Bush. So, this was a bipartisan organization because clearly people understood that you have to have bipartisan support to clean up the air and clean up the water. Not fifty years ago, the U.S. was extremely polluted. EPA and the Clean Air Act have done a fabulous job over the last fifty years. I mean, our air is so much cleaner, and our economy has hummed along quite nicely through it all. But there’s still more work to do. In nominating Scott Pruitt, President Trump has put forward somebody whose entire career is based on suing EPA. This is a man who does not even believe that mercury is toxic to fetuses and babies. Which is scientifically wrong. So, he will do nothing to uphold the spirit or the letter of EPA. He will try to dismantle it, basically. That’s extremely troublesome for everybody, whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat.

E: So, our air and water could even get back to where they were in the 1950s, 1960s? Or we can see the horrible air in China, right?

Browning: Sure. If we get rid of regulations, we will be right back where we were because it’s very obvious that industry doesn’t do this on its own.

E: Right. It needs the hand of government. What about the climate change part of the piece? How are you involved in that, and how might the Trump administration be threatening that?

Browning: We’re very involved in the climate change piece. To be honest with you, that’s the piece that keeps me awake at night. I have a little grandchild, my first grandchild, who’s not even a year old. I think about what kind of world I’m going to be leaving behind for him, and it disturbs me deeply. Climate change is so dangerous. Because we could not get congressional action on climate change, President Obama put forth a Clean Power Plan, American’s Clean Power Plan; administrator Gina McCarthy, the previous EPA administrator, made thousands of trips around the country, meeting with governors and various officials to put in place state-driven plans so that the states would control how they would bring down their carbon and their methane emissions. Their carbon emissions, mainly. And it’s a plan that needs to be refined; it needs to go forward, but it’s legal—the Supreme Court has said that we need to regulate carbon emissions. And Pruitt and Trump have basically stated that they are going to drop it. And they’ve also stated that they want to be out of the Paris Agreement, which is a global agreement in which America has leadership in bringing down its carbon emissions. So, all of these things are basically denial of science. And denial of life.

E: Yeah. Especially the future generations.

Browning: Well, and even for generations now! We are feeling heat waves from climate change. We’re seeing unprecedented flooding. We’re seeing mega-droughts. We’re seeing ocean level rises, so that you’ve got cities up and down the East Coast that are flooding, sometimes even on sunny days, like in Miami and in Charleston. Wildfires, devastating floods in the northwest. These things have always happened, but they’re happening now as if it were weather on steroids. And that’s exactly what climate scientists have predicted would happen as the globe warms.

E: Right, so we are fitting what the models were telling us. Now, the Trump administration—they can use executive action to roll back some of these reforms, but what about Congress? What role will Congress play? Because the Clean Air Law is still in place.

Browning: Oh, exactly. To change laws, there will have to be congressional activity. In order to roll back rules, that’s a much more tedious process. Lawyers will be involved. It’s a slower process. The Supreme Court has ruled that greenhouse gas must be regulated, and so therefore, if the administration—the Trump administration—destroys the Clean Air Act, they will have to come up with something else. If they destroy the Clean Power Plan. Basically, what we’re seeing out of the Trump administration is destructiveness. Every single thing that they have announced they want to do about clean air and clean water is to destroy what is already in place as protections for our children. That’s the most disturbing part of it.

E: Do you see a danger that that Congress would actually—because it also has quite a lot of climate skepticism and anti-environmentalist sentiment—do you think they might actually change the underlying laws, such as the Clean Air Act?

Browning: I know what you’re saying because there certainly is a great deal of — I wouldn’t even call it skepticism any more, I would call it lying about the science. Because I think many people know exactly what’s going on, but it just isn’t convenient for them to do anything about it. I think that they might try, but I also think that there are a lot of both Republican and Democratic senators who hold the center and who do think about the future for their children, who see what’s going on right now in our cities, and they see what’s happening with insurance rates. I think that they will want to do better than just destroying the protections we have. So I don’t think any of this is going to go down easily.

E: Okay. So that gets to the question of what Moms Clean Air Force, specifically, is doing about these issues. As a group, how are you trying to fight the threats to our air and climate.

Browning: So, as a group, we have been all over the nomination of Scott Pruitt. We’ve been at the hearings. We’ve been meeting with senators regularly to educate and inform them about who he is and what his record is. We’ve been marching into people’s offices, both in Washington, D.C. and in state. As things proceed, we will continue to target both senators and governors. A lot of the work for keeping our air clean is going to be state-based, and so we want to make sure that governors and state legislatures are aware that moms demand clean air protections for our children. So we’re doing a lot of grassroots organizing, a lot of visiting, a lot of talking, and a lot of educating. You know, for people who don’t understand the climate science, we want to just work harder on getting our materials even clearer.

E: Okay. And the state is the level that would actually be implementing the Clean Power Plan. So are you seeing—do you feel you are able to shift governors and state houses, or are you seeing resistance to implementing the plan? And especially if the President is no longer behind it?

Browning: We’ve seen both. We’ve seen resistance, and we’ve seen state AGs, among them Scott Pruitt, suing to stop the plan, but we’ve also seen states band together, support the plan, and come up with creative ways to meet their requirements. We know that a lot of states—take a look at Texas, for example—a lot of states are getting really robust renewable energy sectors. Texas, I think, is now the biggest wind energy producer. So people are beginning to see that there are businesses to be built and there are thousands of jobs to be created when we move our grid off of fossil fuels and on to renewables. We know there’s a path forward. It’s a long path, but hopefully we will be able to continue to go in the right direction.

E: So economic interests are changing, but how about the level of environmental concern? Especially with all the organizing, the Women’s Marches… I know there’s a big Climate March coming up. Are you seeing that that is also having an effect?

Browning: Absolutely. There’s a Climate March coming up the week after Earth Day, and on Earth Day there’s also a Science March, which was just announced yesterday, and I’m very excited about that. Science teachers, scientists want to basically remind America, “We are the backbone of driving your economy forward: all our discoveries, our creations, our engineering.” So, yeah. I think all of this is working. And I also noticed that this time around, even in the Cabinet hearings, we didn’t hear that much about “climate change isn’t happening.” The dialogue has shifted a bit, and now people are saying, “Well, it’s happening, but we don’t know how much humans have contributed to it.” Well, that’s not true. We know exactly how much humans have contributed to the carbon in the atmosphere because those man-made carbon particles actually have a fingerprint, a molecular fingerprint, that we can measure them. But at least now, it isn’t right anymore to say it’s simply not happening. Except for the most retrograde politicians.

E: Denial is getting harder, but there are always people who will find a way to avoid the truth if they want to enough.

Browning: Well, they’re being paid to avoid the truth. They’re being paid by the fossil fuel companies.

E: Yeah. What about Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State? Have you weighed in on that? Because he is a former fossil fuel executive.

Browning: Well, not only—and I don’t want to say all fossil fuel executives are terrible people. Listen, we are where we are in this modern age because of fossil fuels. We owe those industries great debt as well as, you know, fury over how polluting they’ve been and how destructive they’re been in hiding the truth about—they knew. ExxonMobil knew what it was doing to the atmosphere. Tillerson seems to have been a more reasonable CEO on climate change, but we have yet to see whether he actually does something about it. If he maintains American leadership in the Paris Agreement, terrific. That’ll be great. He’s certainly not ignorant. He’s not a stupid person. He has children, and he has grandchildren, and I’m sure he must be wondering, “What is the world going to be like?”

E: Now, a couple of other issues regarding fossil fuel uses: the pipeline that carries tar sands, which are dirty fossils, from Canada through the U.S.; and then the Standing Rock Sioux are also fighting a pipeline that threatens their water. Is Moms Clean Air Force weighing in on either of these, or do you have a position on these?

Browning: Oh, sure. We have been weighing in. We’ve had moms right up there with the Dakota protestors. But let me pull back from any single pipeline and say, our biggest problem with all of this is that we have more than enough pipeline infrastructure right now. We’re just not using it properly. We don’t need more pipelines; we need to use the pipelines we have in a more efficient way. And we need to be transitioning away from polluting fuels to renewable fuels.

E: And when your organization does weigh in, how much of it is you, or staff members, going, say, to Congress, or governors’ offices, and how much of it is more grassroots, letter-writing, email, telephone campaigns? What kind of balance?

Browning: Oh, it’s a huge mix, and the balance is more on volunteers than anything else because we have a very small staff. The way we organize it is, say, we’ll have a mom who’s working in Montana part-time as an activist, and she will then find Super Moms in her area who want to jump in and write letters or go visit senators or their governors. So it spreads to a grassroots level very quickly.

E: Okay, great. And then it still—we know a lot of environmental organizations are hard at work, but it’s kind of easy to either, as individuals, to give in to despair or say, “What can one person do?”, or just be apathetic. So what would you say to listeners of this podcast as to how they might be able to actually make a difference or respond?

Browning: You would be amazed what a difference one person can do. You’d be amazed at what a difference ten of you and your friends can do. When senators get hand-written letters, when they get phone calls, when you go see them in their offices—it makes an enormous difference. I’ve seen that in the last five years that we’ve been doing this, and I know so many people have. I think the best antidote to despair is getting out of bed, facing the problem, and feeling every single day, as if you are doing something to make the world a better place.

We recently caught up with Anne Kelly, Senior Program Director in Public Policy for the non-profit Ceres, to discuss the prospects for businesses and states banding together to try to meet our Paris agreement commitments despite threats from the Trump administration to scrap the Clean Power Plan and pull out of the international climate pact. Since its formation in 1989, Ceres has been working to mobilize investor and business leadership to build a thriving, sustainable global economy. The group recently made waves when it announced that more than 700 American companies large and small had signed onto a letter calling on President Trump and our other elected leaders to uphold U.S. commitments to the Paris climate accord and continue with existing low-carbon policies. Kelly spoke with us via telephone from her office in Boston…

EarthTalk: Tell me a little bit about what Ceres has been up to lately and what the group’s top priorities are now that Trump has assumed the presidency…

Kelly: Yeah sure, and of course, you are talking to me from the public policy perspective and that’s the team that I run. We are certainly gathering as much information as we possibly can. We are looking strategically at those areas that very much need to be defended. First and foremost, as you know, we put out the Paris Defense Statement that called for the continuation of development of the low carbon economy and for the U.S. to keep its role in the Paris agreement. We now have over 700 companies and investors signed onto that statement. We’ve had two releases: one right after the election and one just before the inaugural. We are also looking at other regulatory reforms that are being contemplated. We are weighing in where we can. Where it is most strategic to try and defend those [regulatory reforms]. We have a number of letters contemplated, and we also have our bench of investors and companies taking private action by talking to lawmakers behind the scenes and expressing their concerns. Particularly because these are leadership and investor companies that are quite committed to a clean energy economy in the U.S. They have their own publicly stated goals, and many of them are quite interested in making sure that the U.S. doesn’t get behind and fall back on the many gains we have made in the last eight years.

E: Is there any chance the U.S. could still meet its Paris climate accord commitments in terms of overall emissions reductions through efforts by states, municipalities, companies, investors etc. even if Trump pulls out of the international agreement and cancels the Clean Power Plan?

Kelly: Well, of course I am speculating here, and as I have stated earlier, we and our company members feel strongly that the U.S. should stay with the agreement. We feel that we would lose credibility, that we would lose a competitive advantage by leaving the agreement. Yes, is the answer. Especially given the leadership, of as you say cities and states, and in particular the private sector. We are encouraged by the increased momentum in the private sector around the procurement of renewable energy. I mean, you could just look at the trends and the statistics. Many of the companies I have spoken to have said “We didn’t set these energy goals because of who was in the White House.” So, many of those procurement plans are in place. They are moving forward. Business planning has already projected the purchase of renewable energy in many of these companies with 2030, 2040, and 2050 goals, and those are going to stay in place. Companies are not going to suddenly rollback their ambitions or their leadership because of this particular administration.

So I would say that it is possible that we would meet those goals not because of the Trump administration but really in spite of whatever the administration might do. Now, obviously, there is a lot of variables, for sure, and that is why we stand by strong rules and regulations at the federal level.

But we are also encouraged by seeing leadership at the state level, and we are going to continue to encourage strong renewable energy portfolio standards at the state level, and to do what we can to remove barriers for companies that are seeking to procure renewable energy. As I said, they are doing this at increasing rates and, of course, much of that is attributable to the lower prices of renewable energy. We think those trends will continue, and we would like to highlight those trends at the municipal level, too. All that is very exciting, and I don’t see that changing.

E: Could American companies band together to play a larger role in helping meet our Paris commitments regardless of federal support?

Kelly: Yes, absolutely. I think we saw over the last couple of years that many of the major companies are, in fact, not only for admissions reduction, but they are starting to “walk the talk” and “talk the walk.” You know about the 156 or so companies that took the American Business on Climate Pledge under the Obama administration. We know that there are almost a 100 companies that have taken a pledge to operate from 100% renewable energy with the RE 100 Campaign. Please note that these companies transcend the political spectrum. There is a full range of companies and a full range of sectors that have done the math, and figured out that the smart, economic move for them to do is to simply shift (to as great of an extent as possible) to a renewable energy model. It is interesting that the low carbon Paris support letter which we put out for signing … 48 hours after the election and within two days we had a 190 companies. We did the press release in four days and we ended up with 365 [companies]. We reopened it because so many wanted to sign on that hadn’t been able to, and at the last release we were at 630 and as I speak to you we are over 700. I mean, folks are continuing to sign on even though we aren’t actually advertising it now.

What is also important is that they cover 44 states so this wasn’t a bi-coastal message at all. They also cover a full range of family owned businesses, mid-sized businesses, manufacturers, tech, apparel, food, and chemical companies. Really a broad sweep of the power companies of the American economy going out of their way to stand up publicly and make the statement. I think what is also notable is that there were no companies that actually asked to be removed from this statement from the initial mid-November release to the pre-inaugural release of January 10th. They continue to reinforce their commitment and offer quotes.

So I think there is something definitely there. I think companies really want to get the message out that they were already on a path to low carbon economy. This administration is not going to slow them down. At the same time, I think they are actually quite interested in in trying to communicate effectively with the Trump administration about the value of a carbon price. I really see what he is doing as simply offering to provide the strong economic case that is available and that perhaps the Trump administration isn’t familiar with. There is no hostility there. Many of these companies would like to simply have an audience with various members of the Trump team to say “Let us show you our numbers. Let us talk about the competitive advantage that the U.S. is risking if we drop out of the clean energy revolution at this particular moment, and cede that leadership to China or to someone else”. So this is a really strong business position to convey, and I think many of them are hopeful that in the coming weeks and months, we will actually be able to find common ground with the administration. Again, this is once they have fully appreciated and understood the incredible benefits and economic and job generating opportunities around the clean energy economy. They have only been at this for five or six days so have they really embraced those analytics? It is not clear that they have. Who better to be telling that case than companies like Google, which has purchased more renewable energy than most power companies. Or someone like Elon Musk who has been so successful in the marketplace. So, that is very hopeful. That is what we are going to continue to encourage as we go forward with the Trump administration — simultaneously defending some of those essential regulatory elements that we really need to keep in place.

E: Did Tesla and Google sign onto Ceres’ Declaration?

Kelly: Yes Tesla did sign onto our statement so they were part of it. Google actually made a very strong pro-Paris statement a couple of weeks after our statement came out, and we certainly applaud that. Google has been just a stunning leader in this space on their own. They also joined their peers in signing the resolution to support the continuation of the clean power plant. So, I cannot say enough about Google’s leadership, and I respect that people find various communication pathways and statements to join. Both of those companies have just been exhibiting incredible leadership. As you know, both have actually spoken to the Trump administration. We are confident that that message will get through, but it may just be a matter of time.

E: What are some of the bigger companies that signed on, and did any big oil or energy companies sign on?

Kelly: Pacific Gas and Electric signed on as a power company so we are thrilled about that. Many large companies signed including Intel, Fortune 100 Dupont, Staples, Mars, Nike, Starbucks, Levi’s, Murk, and Jell-o. There is a very long list. Salesforce, Merck, Biogen… The nature of the list is important because it wasn’t done on purpose. There is a 300 person manufacturing company in Indiana, Jupiter Aluminum, that signed on. It is really important that we give voice to those red state companies that may not always grab the headlines but are doing good work day in and day out. They really see and support the vision of a clean energy economy.

E: Has the Trump administration since Inauguration Day made any comments about the Clean Power Plan or is there anything in the works regarding any Exec order or is that something that’s just going to have to work it’s way through the courts regardless?

Kelly: I think it is going to have to work it’s way through the courts, regardless. It probably has a long trajectory, and I wouldn’t want to predict at this point. You know exactly what will happen in that regard. There are states that have already done the groundwork to implement the Clean Power Plan and they are saying “Why should we back up now, why would we stop now”? Again, there is a little bit of a race to the top among the states who are seeking to have companies cite data centers and other facilities in their states. Increasingly, the perspective companies are saying, “Tell me about your energy portfolio”, and if they don’t have a renewable energy offering, they are going to be a less favorable destination. To me, that is another exciting and fairly new trend over these last couple of years. There is a tremendous amount of action there and that creates a tremendous market pull that will just continue to allow the renewal energy revolution to explode. So that’s what we are tracking and encouraging. It is also very apolitical, it transcends politics, it is just good business.

E: Is Ceres involved in any way with the climate divestment movement?

Kelly: You probably know that Siri’s history was based on investors in general being very active in the companies that they own. Through shareholders resolutions really deeply engaging with companies to try and make certain that their behavior is appropriate in terms of environmental goals and leadership in terms of human rights, and now more recently, climate and energy. We continue to support and in a full engagement model for investors and companies. We think that companies should listen to their investors and investors can be very influential, and have been very influential in encouraging appropriate leadership. We also are encouraging portfolio de-carbonalization. Generally there is embedded risk in portfolios that haven’t carefully examined this carbon asset. That can be a problem and should be examined very carefully.

E: What other fronts is Ceres working on regarding climate and federal action?

Kelly: We are very excited about helping those moderate Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives, to be able to take action on climate change. We are extremely encouraged by Representative Chris Gibson (formally from upstate New York) in the last session who put out a resolution in the House for signatures by Republicans that basically said that climate change was real and humans were causing it, and that is was time to take action. I am summarizing the resolution. We support Carlos Curbelo and others who have signed onto that resolution, many who are taking part in the bipartisan Climate Change Solution Caucus with Democrats to try to cobble together and research and explore real bipartisan solutions. We feel as though Republicans in particular who are open minded and looking for answers very much deserve the political support of the business and investor community. We are going to continue to cultivate those Republicans, give them the support they need and make sure their questions are answered. I am particularly encouraged by some of the younger representatives who seem to have a better handle on the problem of climate change and the need for a rapid solution. Certainly, if we continue to find Republicans in the Senate we will support any and all of them who are looking for a solution. We remain hopeful and open minded about the possibility of a carbon pricing scheme. There has been such robust support from a wide range of organizations that again, span the political spectrum. The call for carbon pricing is coming from all different quarters at this point. We will be supportive of these models and carefully examine the core principles that are behind the carbon pricing models. We will also continue to support those at the state level, as we continue to support other robust state policies.

E: Does that presume a carbon tax or marketplace?

Kelly: Yes, I think at this point we really need to be open to all models. I would say that most of the discussions we’ve been participating in have been about a carbon fee or a tax versus a cap and trade model. However, we are very excited about encouraging cap and trade in this stunningly successful California model of AB 32. At the federal level, most of the conversations seem to be around including some kind of carbon pricing mechanism potentially in the context of tax reform. I must emphasis that is very, very early in this session and in this administration, so I would not want to presume or have any type of predictions. What is encouraging to me is that you can talk about carbon pricing now and have a rigorous conversation across party lines in a way that could not have been done five or six years ago. We have been in D.C. since 2008 (our public policies go back to ‘89 of course). I am encouraged just by the rigor of these conversations at this point and so many contributions from the organizations from, again, a wide political spectrum. They are really coming together and realizing that you “got to tax what you burn and not what you earn” and figure out a way to properly price the thing you don’t want. We are hopeful and will continue to try and be a part of those conversations.

E: Has Trump commented on the idea of a carbon fee during the campaign at all?

Kelly: Not to my knowledge; I did not hear that during the campaign. I know that there are many behind the scenes conversations going on, so I would not want to presume what his closest allies are contemplating at this point. Again, I have to say, it is just so early and I am not really sure they had time to understand the magnitude of this movement. With Elon Musk on his corporate forum provided guidance and advice and I suspect many of the others of that forum are inviting him to examine various carbon pricing schemes. My suspicion is that his team will do just that.

E: Alright. That’s very interesting and hopeful. Anything else you want to mention?

Kelly: I think that I would only say that, just for emphasis, that many of our corporate leaders had very robust sustainability in climate and energy programs in place for many years and one election is not going to turn the clock back on those goals or systems. These individuals are completely committed to building a sustainable economy and they will continue to move full speed ahead. I think eventually the Trump administration will realize the momentum and be captivated by it and understand the competitive advantage that it really represents.